Amended proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)

SUMMARY

The Commission presented a Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy (COM(2000) 47 final of 7 February 2000 [1]) on the basis of the Council Common Position [2] and the state of negotiations on the proposed Water Framework Directive. The final agreement on the Framework Directive in the conciliation of 28/29 June 2000 introduced a new requirement for the Commission to identify "priority hazardous substances" which shall be subject to cessation or phase-out of discharges, emissions and losses within 20 years.

[1] OJ C 177E, 27.06.2000, p. 74.

[2] OJ C 343, 30.11.1999, p.1.

The Commission has now amended the above-mentioned Proposal in order to align the Proposal with the finally adopted text of the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy [3], in particular by:

[3] OJ L XXX, xx.12.2000, p. X.

*identifying the "priority hazardous substances",

*introducing a "review clause" for certain "priority substances" and

*adapting the terminology and the phrasing of the final adopted text.

The amendment was requested both, the European Parliament and the Council. It must be emphasised that, apart from the above-mentioned amendments, the Proposal of February 2000 is still fully in line with the requirements set out under the Water Framework Directive.

In summary, 32 substances or group of substances are proposed as "priority substances" under the Water Framework Directive, of which 11 substances are proposed as "priority hazardous substances" and 11 substances are proposed as "priority substances under review". The final decision for their identification as "priority hazardous substances" will be proposed and adopted with the revision of the list of priority substances, which is foreseen within four years after the entry into force of the Framework Directive. For the remaining 10 priority substances, there is no evidence that they are "toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate" or giving rise to an "equivalent level of concern" based on the best available knowledge.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. Introduction

1. In 1997 the Commission proposed a European Parliament and Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy [4] (Water Framework Directive, hereafter referred as WFD). The Directive was finally adopted in September 2000 (2000/60/EC [5]).

[4] OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, p. 20, OJ C 16, 10.1.1998, p. 14, OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 94 and OJ C 342, 30.11.1999, p.1.

[5] OJ L XXX, xx.XX.2000, p. X.

2. In particular, Article 16 of the Directive 2000/60/EC lays down the Community strategy for the establishment of harmonised quality standards and emission controls of certain substances posing a significant risk to, or via, the aquatic environment. It will replace, within a certain transition period, the emission control policy established under Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community [6] and the Directives adopted within its framework.

[6] OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

3. Article 16 contains, for the first time, a legal framework and a clear methodological basis for the prioritisation of substances. In its proposal for the WFD, the Commission set a deadline for the completion of a proposal establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy (hereafter refered as list of priority substances). Accordingly, the Commission initiated expert discussions on the development of a generally accepted prioritisation algorithm. During three rounds of expert discussions from February 1998 to April 1999, the combined monitoring-based and modelling-based priority setting (COMMPS) procedure was developed in collaboration with a consultant and was applied in the selection process of the proposed priority substances. The final report of that study was published by the Commission in December 1999 [7].

[7] "Study on the prioritisation of substances dangerous to the aquatic environment". Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1999 (ISBN 92-828-7981-X).

4. Based on the outcome of the study and the comments that the Commission received from all stakeholders, a Proposal was prepared, which included 32 substances or groups of substances. The proposed priority substances would be subject to Community-wide emission controls and quality standards as foreseen under Article 16. Finally, the Commission adopted the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy on 7 February 2000 (COM(2000) 47 final) [8].

[8] OJ C 177E, 27.06.2000, p. 74.

5. In the final negotiations in the conciliation on the Water Framework Directive, the hazardous substances objective was discussed intensively. Several modifications were introduced in the Recitals, Article 1, 2, 4 and 11 in order to find a compromise between the Common Council Position [9] and the Amendments as adopted in the Second Reading of Parliament [10]. Despite all these changes, the Proposal for a list of priority substances is still valid. The selection procedure set out under Article 16 (2) was not changed in substance and the Proposal includes the substances of "greatest concern for the European surface and coastal waters" which should be subject to regulation independent of the exact text with regard to objectives and measures.

[9] OJ C 343, 30.11.1999, p.1.

[10] European Parliament legislative resolution A5-0027/2000 on the common position adopted by the Council (9085/3/1999-C5-0209/1999-1997/0067(COD)) at the sitting of 16.02.2000 (www.europarl.eu.int).

6. In addition, paragraph 3 was introduced into Article 16 as a new element in order to achieve an even higher level of protection relating to substances with an outstanding concern for the fresh water, coastal and marine environment. The paragraph states (emphasis added):

"The Commission's proposal shall also identify the priority hazardous substances. In doing so, the Commission shall take into account the selection of substances of concern undertaken in the relevant Community legislation regarding hazardous substances or relevant international agreements."

In addition, the definitions under Article 2 of the WFD specify that (emphasis added):

"29)" Hazardous substances" means substances or group of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate; and other substances or group of substances which give rise to an equivalent level of concern."

and

"30)" Priority substances" means substances identified in accordance with Article 16 (2) and listed in Annex X. Amongst these substances there are «priority hazardous substances» which means substances identified in accordance with Article 16 (3) and (6) for which measures have to be taken in accordance with Article 16 (1) and 16 (8)."

7. The differentiated level of protection and objectives shall be achieved by a different level of emission controls for priority substances and priority hazardous substances as set out in Article 16 (6) (emphasis added):

"For the priority substances, the Commission shall submit proposals of controls for:

-the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of substances concerned, and, in particular

-the cessation or phasing out of discharges, emissions and losses of substances as identified in accordance with paragraph 3, including an appropriate timetable for doing so. The timetable shall not exceed 20 years after the adoption of these proposals by the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with the provisions of this Article...."

8. The list of priority substances and the identified priority hazardous substances will play a key role in future Community environmental and, particularly, water policy. As a consequence of the adoption of priority substances, the Commission shall produce proposals for emission controls and quality standards within two years as specified in Article 16 (7) and (8) of the WFD (2000/60/EC). For the priority hazardous substances, the proposals for emission controls shall aim to end or phase out emissions, discharges and losses within 20 years.

2. Identification of priority hazardous substances

9. As mentioned above, the amended Proposal was necessary because of the new requirement that the Commission identify the "priority hazardous substances" as a sub-group of the priority substances. Whereas the new Article 16 (3) set out the general provisions for the identification of the "priority hazardous substances", there is neither a detailed procedure in the Water Framework Directive nor specific criteria, thresholds or cut-off values.

10. Immediately after agreement was reached in the conciliation, the Commission prepared a working document, which included the relevant aspects for an identification procedure. The first draft of the Working Document (ENV/140400/01rev of 12 September 2000) was discussed with an ad-hoc group of experts from Member States, industry, environmental NGOs and other stakeholders in consultation meetings of 25 and 26 September 2000. Most of the ad-hoc group experts submitted comments, information and data before 9 October 2000. These comments were fully considered in the revision of the Working Document and the information and data were taken into account in the update of the Fact Sheets, where appropriate. The Working Document "Modified proposal for a procedure for the Identification of priority hazardous substances in accordance to Article 16 (3) of the Water Framework Directive" and the revised Fact Sheets (ENV/191000/01 of 19 October 2000) provided a sufficiently sound basis for decision-making.

11. The proposed procedure in the Working Document grouped the proposed 32 priority substances according to their "level of concern" taking particular account of their "level of hazard". The procedure is based on the best available knowledge. The main emphasis was put on available "hazard assessments", in particular work carried out under the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Hazardous Substances, the classification and labelling of dangerous substances under Council Directive 67/548/EEC and the Protocol on POPs under the UN-ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Furthermore, the procedure considered the finalised risk assessments made under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 and Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the information under the regulations of pollution by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment under Council Directive 76/464/EEC and its five 'daughter' directives. The above-mentioned information was used to group the priority substances into clusters with increasing "levels of concern".

12. For the final assignment of a priority substance, "additional considerations" were considered to confirm or reject the status of the substance. The "additional considerations" included other relevant Community legislation or relevant international agreements, the production and use of the substance, the socio-economic impacts of a cessation or phase-out and the suspected endocrine disrupting potential of the substance. The details of the applied procedure and the relevant information and data are laid down in the Working Document ENV/191000/01 final: "Identification of priority hazardous substances: Modified procedure in accordance with Article 16 (3) of the Water Framework Directive" which is available from the Commission.

13. The main outcome of the consultation process was the conclusion that, for certain priority substances, the available knowledge might not make possible a final decision as to whether they should be identified as "priority hazardous substances". Hence, it is proposed to earmark these substances for an early review. The review shall scrutinise further technical and scientific evidence which may be available in the years after the adoption of the proposed list of priority substances. The final decision whether these substances shall remain "priority substances" or being identified as "priority hazardous substances" shall be taken with the revision of the list of priority substances within four yours after the entry into force of the Water Framework Directive.

14. The identification of "priority hazardous substances" reflects the intrinsic hazardous properties of a substance, i.e. the substance is toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate and or give rise to "an equivalent level of concern".

2.1. Proposed priority hazardous substances

15. In accordance with the above-mentioned procedure, the following 11 substances or groups of substances shall be identified as "priority hazardous substances":

*Brominated diphenylether (only pentabromodiphenylether);

*Cadmium;

*Chloroalkanes, C10-13;

*Hexachlorobenzene;

*Hexachlorobutadiene;

*Hexachlorocyclohexane;

*Mercury;

*Nonylphenols;

*Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs);

*Pentachlorobenzene;

*Tributhyltin compounds.

16. Four substances, i.e. chloroalkanes (C10-13), hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane and tributyltin compounds, were identified as posing extremely high hazard levels, equivalent to the properties of "Persistent Organic Pollutants" (POP-like properties). In addition, the substances are already subject to phase-out or under consideration for phase-out on the international level, i.e. under the OSPAR Convention [11], the UN-ECE POP Protocol [12] or the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) respectively. In the case of chloroalkanes (C10-13) these are subject to severe restrictions within the Community. In consequence, the requirements under these international agreements and Community legislation may substantially cover the upcoming provisions for "priority hazardous substances" under the Water Framework Directive.

[11] OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic of 1992 (merger of the former Oslo Convention and the Paris Convention).

[12] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution of 1979, Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants signed in 1998 in Aarhus.

17. Pentabromodiphenylether, hexachlorobutadiene, pentachlorobenzene and nonylphenol are extremely "hazardous" similar to the above-mentioned substances. However, they are not as yet widely regulated under international agreements or under Community legislation. Hexachlorobutadiene and pentachlorobenzene are no longer produced or used in the Community and these substances may only pose a problem if they occur as by-products or impurities.

18. The exceptional concern over pentabromodiphenylether and nonylphenol is confirmed by the conclusions of the risk assessments made under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 [13]. There is evidence that both substances pose an actual and widespread risk to, or via, the aquatic environment. Whereas the proposed risk reduction measures under that regulation aim to eliminate the existing risk within the shortest possible timeframe, the identification as a "priority hazardous substance" under the Water Framework Directive will ensure a higher level of protection of the aquatic environment in a long-term. This is particularly the case for the marine environment, which was not subject to the above-mentioned risk assessment.

[13] OJ L 84, 05.04.1993, p.1.

19. For decades, mercury, cadmium and lead have been known to be the most toxic metals. As early as the 1970s and 1980s, extensive pollution reduction measures were being initiated on the national, European and international scale. Finally, in 1998, another milestone was achieved under two international agreements. First, the Protocol on Heavy Metals under the UN-ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution was signed in Aarhus [14]. The Protocol stated that there are "significant adverse effects on human health or the environment" from emissions of heavy metals, i.e. mercury, cadmium and lead. The Commission recently proposed the ratification of the Protocol (COM(2000) 177 final of 12 April 2000). Secondly, similar considerations led to the inclusion of mercury, cadmium and lead in the "List of Chemicals for Priority Action" under the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East-Atlantic in 1998 [15]. The objective of the OSPAR Convention for the three metals and other hazardous substances is to make every endeavour to move towards the target of cessation of emissions, discharges and losses by 2020.

[14] http://www.unece.org

[15] Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Sintra, 22-23 July 1998, Summary Record (http://www.ospar.org)

20. Although it is not possible to apply toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative criteria to select those metals which should become "priority hazardous substances", it is possible to identify an "equivalent level of concern" for mercury and cadmium. Mercury is extremely harmful to the aquatic environment and human health in its inorganic form. Furthermore, its eco-toxicity and the potential to bio-accumulate increases even further with the conversion of inorganic mercury into organic forms which may take place under certain environmental conditions as described in the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) of 28 September 1999.

21. Cadmium is another non-essential metal which is highly toxic and eco-toxic. In some European countries, adverse effects to aquatic organisms are already being reported in the range of natural background concentrations. Certain cadmium compounds are classified under Council Directive 67/548/EEC [16] as being carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic to reproduction. Chronic effects on human health may occur due to accumulation of cadmium in liver, bones, blood, kidneys and muscles, with an elimination half-time of 10-30 years. This high human toxicity resulted in the second lowest limit value for inorganic substances under Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC [17] after mercury.

[16] OJ B 196, 16.08.1967, p.1 as last amended by Commission Directive 2000/33/EC (OJ L 136, 08.06.2000, p. 90).

[17] OJ L 330, 05.12.1998, p.32.

22. Although lead gives rise to similar levels of concern as mercury and cadmium under international agreements, it is proposed that its identification as a "priority hazardous substances" be reviewed in order to verify relevant information and the severe consequences of such a decision.

23. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) consist of hundreds of individual chemicals. Most of the PAHs are toxic, persistent and are liable to bio-accumulate, although their properties may differ from substance to substance. The outcome of the COMMPS procedure clearly showed that several individual PAHs pose some of the highest relative risks to or via the aquatic environment in the Community. In addition, the Protocol on POPs under the UN-ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution identifies PAHs as POPs and sets out considerable reduction measures. Moreover, the "List of Chemicals for Priority Action" under the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East-Atlantic includes PAHs, aiming to achieve cessation of their emissions, discharges and losses by 2020. It is therefore proposed that PAHs should be identified as "priority hazardous substances".

24. The major sources of PAH emissions are releases as unintentional by-products of all sorts of combustion processes, aluminium production and coke ovens. Hence, for the time being, no decision can be made as to whether it is technically feasible that the specific measures under Article 16 (6) of the Water Framework Directive target the absolute provision for "zero emission". In addition, the same Article requires the identification of the "appropriate cost-effective and proportionate level and combination of product and process controls". Similar considerations may apply for metals.

25. It may seem that there is a contradiction between the objective "cessation or phase out of discharges, emission and losses" and the technical and economical feasibility of such an objective. However, the Water Framework Directive clearly sets out that the provisions for specific measures under Article 16 shall be proposed by the Commission in specific Directives for adoption of the European Parliament and the Council within two years of the adoption of the list of priority substances. These specific directives may, where appropriate, include specific definitions, derogations or threshold levels for emission, discharges and losses, which take account of technical and economic constraints. Furthermore, where appropriate, those specific directives, regulating the production, marketing and use of a substance will also take into account the results of the risk assessments for the substance in question. Nevertheless, the Commission proposals will ensure that the measures for "priority hazardous substances" aim at the "cessation or phase-out of discharges, emissions and losses" as stated in Article 16 (1). One possibility for monitoring the achievement of the objective might be the development of appropriate indicators.

26. The Commission has already made use of the expertise of interested parties as set out in Article 16 (5) of the Water Framework Directive in the past. The need to intensify the contribution of experts will further increase with the new technical demands introduced by Article 16. In order to organise and ensure technical input by experts of interested parties, the Commission intends to establish an Expert Advisory Forum (EAF) in 2001. The EAF will address all the technical issues in relation to Article 16, in particular the selection of priority and priority hazardous substances, the elaboration of quality standards and emission controls and the revision of the priority setting, as well as other issues relating to strategies against pollution of waters in the Community.

2.2. Proposed priority substances under review

The following 11 priority substances or groups of substances shall be earmarked for a review:

*Anthracene;

*Atrazine;

*Chlorpyrifos;

*Di (ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP);

*Endosulfan;

*Lead;

*Naphthalene;

*Octylphenols;

*Pentachlorophenol;

*Trichlorobenzenes;

*Trifluralin.

27. These substances show properties similar to those identified as "priority hazardous" (cf. above-mentioned Working Document). However, further scrutiny may be carried out before taking a final decision under Article 16 (3) of the Water Framework Directive. These further considerations may include technical, scientific and economic evidence, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Framework Directive.

28. In addition, a footnote is introduced for the priority substances which are earmarked for an early review, in order to give a clear deadline for the final decision to be taken by the Commission ("review clause"). For final identification of a "priority hazardous substances", the Commission shall take account of the recommendations of the experts invited to participate under the above-mentioned Expert Advisory Forum as set out in Article 16 (5) of the Water Framework Directive including the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE).

2.3. Priority substances not proposed as priority hazardous substances

The following 10 substances or groups of substances shall not be identified as priority hazardous substances for the time being:

*Alachlor;

*Benzene;

*Chlorfenvinphos;

*Dichloromethane;

*1,2-Dichloromethane;

*Diuron;

*Isoproturon;

*Nickel;

*Simazine;

*Trichloromethane.

29. The above-mentioned priority substances were not identified as "hazardous", i.e. they do not fulfil the criteria for being "toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate" or giving rise to an "equivalent level of concern" based on the best available knowledge. However, all of the above-mentioned priority substances are "dangerous" according to their harmonised classification under Council Directive 67/548/EEC or according to "self-classification" based on the criteria of that Directive. It must be borne in mind that classification as "dangerous" is triggered by much lower threshold criteria than those used in selection as "hazardous" or as "Persistent Organic Pollutant" under international agreements. Whereas classification as "dangerous" merely leads to appropriate labelling of chemicals and preparations under 67/548/EEC, identification as "hazardous" under the Water Framework Directive will lead to a cessation or phase-out of discharges, emissions and losses.

30. Notwithstanding, the 10 substances as priority substances were selected under the COMMPS procedure and proposed by the Commission in the Proposal of February 2000. Hence, the above-mentioned substances or group of substances will be subject to emission controls and quality standards in accordance with Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive.

3. Adaptations and corrections

31. The need to amend the Proposal was also used as an opportunity to adapt the Proposal to better match the final text of the Water Framework Directive and to correct inconsistencies in the first Proposal. These changes refer to recitals, the Article 1 and the Annex of the Proposal.

4. Business impact assessment

32. The Proposal of the Commission of 7 February 2000 specified that there will be no additional costs for the Member States beyond the costs "which are already imposed by the obligations under Council Directive 76/464/EEC and the proposed Water Framework Directive". This is still the case for the amended Proposal after the adoption of the Framework Directive.

33. Although costs are included under the above-mentioned regulations, they are not specified for the proposed priority substances. A quantitative assessment of the implementation costs of the specific measures for controls will be included in the proposals for emission controls and quality standards of priority and priority hazardous substances which shall be presented by the Commission two years after the adoption of the proposed list of priority substances.

2000/0035 (COD)

Amended proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular to Article 175 (1) thereof,

Having regard to the Proposal from the Commission [18],

[18] OJ. C 177E, 27.06.2000, p. 74

Having regard the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee [19],

[19] OJ. C X,XX.XX.2000, p. X (Opinion of 12.07.2000 not published yet)

Having regard the opinion of the Committee of the Regions [20],

[20] OJ. C X,XX.XX.2000, p. X

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty,

Whereas:

(1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community [21] and the Directives adopted within its framework represent presently the major Community instrument for the control of point and diffuse discharges of dangerous substances.

[21] OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23

(2) The Community controls under Council Directive 76/464/EEC have been replaced, harmonised and further developed by the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and Council establishing of a framework for Community action in the field of water policy [22].

[22] OJ. L X,XX.XX.2000, p. X

(2a) Under Directive 2000/60/EC specific measures are to be adopted against pollution of water by individual pollutants or groups of pollutants presenting a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment, including such risks to waters used for the abstraction of drinking water. Such measures are aimed at the progressive reduction and, for priority hazardous substances, as defined in Article 2 (30) of Directive 2000/60/EC, at the cessation or phasing out of discharges, emissions and losses. In view of their adoption, it is necessary to establish, as Annex X of Directive 2000/60/EC, the list of priority substances, including the priority hazardous substances. The list has been prepared in taking into account the recommendations referred to in Article 16(5) of Directive 2000/60/EC.

(3) The Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, hereby introduces in Article 16 (2) a scientifically based methodology for selecting priority substances on the basis of their significant risk to or via aquatic environment.

(4) The methodology set out in the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and Council establishing of a framework for Community action in the field of water policy enables, as a most practical option, the application of a simplified risk-based assessment procedure based on scientific principles taking particular account of

-evidence regarding the intrinsic hazard of the substance concerned, and, in particular, its aquatic ecotoxicity and human toxicity via aquatic exposure routes,

-evidence from monitoring of widespread environmental contamination and

-other proven factors which may indicate the possibility of widespread environmental contamination, such as production, use volume and use pattern of the substance concerned.

(5) The Commission has, on this basis, developed a combined monitoring-based and modelling-based priority setting (COMMPS) scheme, in collaboration with experts of interested parties, involving the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment , Member States, EFTA countries, the European Environment Agency, European business associations including those representing small and medium-sized enterprises and European environmental organisations.

(6) A first list of 32 priority substances or groups of substances has been selected on the basis of the COMMPS procedure, following a publicly open and transparent discussion with the interested parties.

(7) The expeditious adoption of this list is desirable in order to allow for the timely and continuing implementation of Community controls of dangerous and hazardous substances pursuant to the strategy set out in Article 16 of the European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, in particular the proposals of controls as set-out in Article 16 (6) and the proposals for quality standards as set-out in Article 16 (7) in order to achieve the objectives of this Directive.

(8) The list of priority substances adopted under this Decision shall replace the list of substances in the Communication from the Commission to the Council on dangerous substances which might be included in List I of Council Directive 76/464/EEC [23].

[23] OJ C 176, 14.7.1982, p. 3

(9) The identification of priority substances and priority hazardous substances targeted to the establishment of controls of emissions, discharges and losses into surface, transitional and coastal waters from land-based sources contributes to the objectives and the Community commitments under international conventions for the protection of marine waters, in particular to the implementation of the Strategy with regard to hazardous substances adopted at the 1998 OSPAR Ministerial Meeting under the Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic pursuant to Council Decision 98/249/EC [24].

[24] OJ L 104, 3.4.1998, p. 1

(10) The COMMPS procedure is designed as a dynamic instrument for the prioritisation of dangerous and hazardous substances open to continuous improvements and modifications with a view of revision and adaptation of the first priority list at the latest four years after the entry into force of the Directive 2000/60/EC and at least every four years thereafter,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The list of priority substances including substances identified as priority hazardous substances, provided for in Article 16(2) and (3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, is hereby established and is set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

The list of priority substances established by this decision replaces the list of substances in the Communication from the Commission to the Council of 22 June 1982 on dangerous substances which might be included in List I of Council Directive 76/464/EEC.

Article 3

The list of priority substances in the field of water policy shall, on its adoption by the European Parliament and the Council, become Annex X to European Parliament and of the Council Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

Article 4

This Decision shall enter into force on the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

ANNEX

List of priority substances in the field of water policy (*)

>TABLE POSITION>

* Where groups of substances have been selected, typical individual representatives are listed as indicative parameters (in brackets and without number). The establishment of controls will be targeted to these individual substances, without prejudicing the inclusion of other individual representatives, where appropriate.

** These groups of substances normally include a considerable number of individual compounds. Presently, appropriate indicative parameters cannot be given.

*** These priority substances are subject to a review for identification as possible "priority hazardous substances" by 31 December 2003. A final decision will be taken in the review of the list of priority substances as foreseen under Article 16(4) of Directive 2000/60/EC.

**** Only Pentabromobiphenylether (CAS number 32534-81-9)