EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 16.9.2022

SWD(2022) 291 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Union Synthesis Report on the application of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on the application of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants

{COM(2022) 463 final}

Table of contents

Table of contents

Preface

1.Introduction and background

2.Approach to update and structure of this document

2.1Structure of the report

2.2Sources of information

3.Production

4.Placing on the market of Annex I and Annex II substances, use and export

4.1Introduction

4.2PFOS – placing on the market, use and export

4.3Substances other than PFOS – placing on the market, use and export.

4.4Export of goods

5.Stockpiles

5.1Stockpiles of PCB-containing equipment

5.2Stockpiles of PFOS

5.3Stockpiles of obsolete pesticides

6.Waste Management and Storage

6.1Management of waste stockpiles

6.2Identification of contaminated sites

6.3Derogations

7.Environmental releases

7.1Measures to identify and characterise sources and Steps to identify source inventories

7.2Emission inventory estimates for Annex III substances

7.3Environmental monitoring

8.Control measures

9.Activities to promote knowledge exchange

9.1Reporting activities

9.2Information exchange

9.3Financial and Technical assistance

9.4Public awareness, consultation, and training

10.Dissuasive measures: Law infringements and penalties

11.Concluding remarks and recommendations

11.1Management of POPs substances

11.2Environmental releases and environmental concentrations of POPs substances

11.3Mechanisms for knowledge exchange and public involvement on the work surrounding POPs substances

11.4Financial and Technical assistance

11.5Conclusions

Appendix AAppendix A – Explanation of how Toxic Equivalent Factors (TEFs) are developed for dioxins and Furans, and dioxin-like PCBs

Appendix BTechnical Annex

Tables

Table 2.1    Structure of this document    

Table 2.2    Reports provided by Member States    

Table 2.3    Status of National Implementation Reporting    

Table 4.1    Summary of PFOS applications in the Union    

Table 4.2    Summary of PFOS being imported during the 2013-2015 period.    

Table 4.3    Summary of PFOS reported in 2013-2015 and their uses.    

Table 4.4    Summary of substances reported as being placed on the market or exported during the 2013-2015 period (excluding PFOS)    

Table 4.5    Summary of uses reported by Member States for substances in 2013-2015 period (excluding PFOS)    

Table 5.1    Overview of stockpiles of PCBs    

Table 5.2    Overview of stockpiles of PCB included in NIP    

Table 5.3    Percentage of PCB in use in di-electric equipment in 2015 compared to 1990 [responses from Member States to request for PCB data, 2017]    

Table 5.4    Overview of stockpiles of PFOS reported by Member States    

Table 5.5    Overview of stockpiles of PFOS included in NIP    

Table 5.6    Overview of stockpiles of obsolete pesticides included in NIP    

Table 6.1    Data on HCH contamination in two landfills in the region of Aragon, Spain    

Table 6.2    Discussion of contaminated land sites within recent national implementation plans (NIPs)    

Table 7.1    Status of emission inventories reported for 2013-2015    

Table 7.2    Emissions reduction for dioxins and furans, and per capita emissions based on data reported under the UNECE POP Protocol    

Table 7.3    Emissions of dioxins and furans to all vectors based on those reported to the EU and Stockholm Convention    

Table 7.4    Comparison of emission estimates between inventories    

Table 7.5    Emissions reduction for PCBs and per capita emissions based on data reported under the UNECE POP Protocol    

Table 7.6    Emissions of PCBs to all vectors based on those reported to the EU and Stockholm Convention    

Table 7.7    Comparison of PCB emission estimates between inventories    

Table 7.8    Emissions reduction for PAHs (sum of 4 congeners) and per capita emissions    66

Table 7.9    Emissions of PAHs (sum of 4 congeners) to all vectors based on those reported to the EU    

Table 7.10    Comparison of emission estimates between inventories for PAHs (sum of 4 congeners)    

Table 7.11    Emissions reduction for HCB and per capita emissions    

Table 7.12    Emissions of HCB and PeCBz to all vectors based on those reported to the EU and Stockholm Convention    

Table 7.13    Comparison of emission estimates between inventories for HCB    

Table 8.1.    Overview of EU Member States’ National Implementation Plans    

Table 8.2    Breakdown of work completed based on Article 12 reports    

Table 9.1    Information reported by Member States    

Table 9.2    Overview of information exchange mechanisms reported by Member States    

Table 9.3    Annual Financial support provided to the Stockholm Convention Trust Fund in the period 2013-2015 (in US$)    

Table 9.4    Annual Financial support provided to the Stockholm Convention Special Voluntary Trust Fund in the period 2013-2015 (in US$)    

Table 9.5    Financial support provided to the GEF    

Table 9.6    Financial support provided to the SAICM    

Table 9.7    Financial support provided to UN institutions and projects    

Table 9.8    Other international cooperation reported by Member States    

Table 9.9    Information reported by Member States on raising public awareness    

Table 9.10    Information reported by Member States on public information and consultation    

Table 9.11    Information reported by Member States on training    

Table 10.1    Information reported by Member States on penalties and infringements    

Table B1    Control Measure (to identify) details based on Article 12 reports for the period 2013 – 2015    

Table B2    Control Measure (to characterise) details based on Article 12 reports for the period 2013 – 2015    

Table B3    Control Measure (to minimise) details based on Article 12 reports for the period 2013 – 2015    

Figures

Figure 7.1    Sources of emissions of dioxins and furans to air for the EU 28 in 2015 (UNECE reported data)    

Figure 7.2    Sources of emissions of dioxins and furans to air (EU 28) – Regulated sites only (UNECE reported data)    

Figure 7.3    Dioxins and Furans emissions to air by Member State (2013-2015)    

Figure 7.4    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of dioxins and furans to air (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 17/01/2019)    

Figure 7.5    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of dioxins and furans to water (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/01/2019)    

Figure 7.6    Sources of PCB emissions to air for the EU 28 (UNECE reported data, 2015)    

Figure 7.7    PCBs emissions by Member State (2013-2015)    

Figure 7.8    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of PCBs to air (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/1/2019    

Figure 7.9    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of PCBs to water (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/1/2019)    

Figure 7.10    Congener sets for PAHs under different schemes    

Figure 7.11    Sources of PAH emissions to air for the EU 28 (UNECE reported data) in 2015    

Figure 7.12    Quantity of PAH emissions to air for the EU 28 (UNECE reported data)    

Figure 7.13    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of PAHs to air (taken from the E-PRTR website on 27/1/2019)    

Figure 7.14    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of PAHs to water (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/1/2019)    

Figure 7.15    Data reported to the E-PRTR for pollutant transfers of PAHs (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/1/2019)    

Figure 7.16    Sources of HCB emissions to air for the EU 28 (UNECE reported data)    

Figure 7.17    HCB emissions by Member State as reported to the UNECE Aarhus Protocol (2013 – 2015).    

Figure 7.18    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of HCB to water (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/1/2019)    

Figure 7.19    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of PeCBz to water (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/1/2019)    

Figure 7.20 EMEP monitoring stations operating in 2015.    

Figure 7.21    Emissions estimates for the sum of 17 PCDD/Fs (TEQ) for EMEP countries in (a) 1990 and (b) 2014 as ng TEQ/M2/year – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.22    Emissions estimates for the indicator congener PCB-153 for EMEP countries in (a) 1990 and (b) 2014 – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.23    Emissions estimates for the sum of (4 congeners) PAHs for EMEP countries in (a) 1990 and (b) 2014 – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.24    Emissions estimates of HCB for EMEP countries in (a) 1990 and (b) 2014 – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.25    Predicted spatial distribution of ambient air concentrations for the sum of 17 PCDD/Fs (fg TEQ/m3) for EMEP countries in 2014    

Figure 7.26    Predicted spatial distribution of ambient air concentrations for PCB-153 for EMEP countries in 2014 – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.27    Comparison of predicted ambient air concentrations for PCDD/Fs (TEQ) for EMEP countries and measurement data within Europe – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.28    Comparison of monthly mean modelled PCB‐153 air concentrations with measurements of EMEP monitoring sites for 2014, pg/m3– EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.29    Spatial distribution of modelled annual mean air concentrations, ng/m3 of 4 PAHs in the EMEP domain for 2014 – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.30    Predicted spatial distribution of ambient air concentrations of HCB for EMEP countries in 2014 – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure 7.31    Comparison of predicted ambient air concentrations for HCB for EMEP countries and measurement data within Europe for 2014 – EMEP Status report 2016    

Figure A.1    WHO Toxic Equivalent Factors 2005    

Figure A.2    Structural role of PCBs in dioxin-like behaviour    

Preface

This document presents the European Union synthesis report on the application of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 1 on persistent organic pollutants in accordance with Article 12(6). The report will also be the basis for the reporting by the Union required by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), of which the European Union (the “Union”) is a Party. As requested in Article 12(6) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004, this report integrates the information available from the European pollutant release and transfer register (E-PRTR) 2 , the CORINAIR Emission Inventory of EMEP 3 and the information provided by Member States under Article 12(1-3). Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 has been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants as of 15 July 2019 (entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2019/1021), which has modified provisions on the monitoring of implementation.

Three previous synthesis reports were published:

In 2009 the first synthesis report 4 , covering the period from 2004 to 2006.

In 2011 the second synthesis report 5 , covering the period from 2007 to 2009.

In 2021 the third synthesis report 6 , covering the period 2010 to 2012.

This document presents the fourth synthesis report, covering the period from 2013 to 2015. Due to the reporting period, the report is still based on the reporting obligations under Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 and includes the United Kingdom. The report includes the Member States’ triennial reports for 2013-2015, Member States Annual reports for 2013, 2014, and 2015 as well as the most recent available data from E-PRTR and EMEP CORINAIR emission inventories (2013–2015).

A summary of this synthesis report is submitted to the European Parliament, to the Council and is made publicly available.

1.1.    Introduction and background

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are chemicals that persist in the environment, bio-accumulate and pose a risk of causing significant adverse effects to human health or the environment. These pollutants are transported across international boundaries far from their sources and even accumulate in regions where they have never been used or produced. POPs pose a threat to the environment and to human health all over the globe, with the Arctic, Baltic and the Alpine regions being examples of EU sinks of POPs. Because of the concern posed by POPs, international agreements were established to address their emissions:

·The UNECE Protocol on POPs (“POPs Protocol”), adopted on 24 June 1998 in Aarhus as part of the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) 7 ;and

·The Stockholm Convention 8 on POPs, adopted in 2001 and which entered into force in 2004.

The European Union (the “Union”) adopted Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 9 (hereafter called the “POP Regulation”) as a legal instrument for the implementation of both the Stockholm Convention and the POPs protocol 10 .

The POP Regulation contains provisions regarding production, placing on the market and use of POPs, management of stockpiles and wastes and measures to reduce unintentional releases of POPs. Identified POPs are listed in three Annexes (Annex I – banned, Annex II – restricted, Annex III – unintentionally released POPs). The POP Regulation contains provisions requiring the setting up of emission inventories for unintentionally produced POPs, national and Union implementation plans and monitoring and information exchange mechanisms. It also includes provisions for waste management and the development of thresholds for POPs within waste, which are detailed in Annexes IV and V of the Regulation.

Since its creation, the POP Regulation has been amended a number of times, mainly to incorporate new substances into its Annexes.

§In 2009 Regulation (EC) 304/2009 11 amended the POP Regulation to update the accepted toxic equivalent factors used for dioxins and furans; and

§In 2010 Regulation (EC) 757/2010 12 amended the Annexes of the POP Regulation to include nine new substances, following their addition to the Stockholm Convention; this notably included poly brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs 13 ) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives (PFOS).

§In 2012 Commission Regulation (EU) No 519/2012 14 further amended the Annexes to add another four substances, including endosulfan (as added to the Stockholm Convention) and hexachlorobutadiene, polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) and short chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) (as added to the POPs Protocol).

§In 2014 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1342/2014 15 amended Annex V to provide new details on the critical thresholds for POPs substances within waste.

§In 2015 Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2030 16 amended Annex I to remove the exemption for SCCPs in conveyor belts.

§In 2016 Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/293 17 further amended Annex I to add hexabromocyclododecane to the POPs Regulation; and

§Also, in 2016, under Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/460 18 Annexes IV and V of the POPs Regulation were amended to add hexabromocyclododecane to the waste annexes, including a critical threshold.

Article 12 of Regulation (EC) 850/2004 covers the reporting requirements for Member States under the POP Regulation. Member States need to report annually, providing statistical data on the production and placing on the market of Annex I and Annex II substances. Every three years, Member States need to report to the European Commission summary information:

§From stockpiles notifications, received pursuant to Art. 5(2).

§From release inventories, established pursuant to Art. 6(1); and

§On dioxins furans and PCBs unintentionally released into the environment, compiled pursuant to Art. 9.

Such information, as received from Member States, is summarised in this report.

Note that the POP Regulation was recast in June 2019 (Regulation (EU) 2019/1021) of the European Parliament and of the Council 19 ). The recast POP Regulation includes changes to the reporting requirements of the regulation. This report is provided to fulfil the reporting requirements under Regulation (EC) 850/2004 prior to the recast.

It should be noted that Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 contains a Commission specific reporting obligation under Article 12(6), which does not exist anymore, as there is no corresponding provision in Regulation (EU) 2019/1021. However, the Commission nonetheless considers appropriate to adopt a report covering the period 2013-2015 based on the Member States reporting in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 since such report serves the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 as regards the monitoring of the progress made in eliminating the use and releases of POPs.

2.2.    Approach to update and structure of this document

2.12.1    Structure of the report

The POP Regulation covers the cradle to grave management of substances included in Annexes I, II and III of the Regulation. It adopts a life-cycle approach to systematically manage the POPs at each stage of their life. This includes administrative procedures for assessing the enforcement of the Regulation and exchange of information between different Member States.

Article 12 reporting requirements for Member States largely follow the order of the articles set out within the regulation. One possible exception is that the reporting requirements do not specifically ask about plans to avoid POPs within wastes as per Article 7 of the regulation. Instead, this information is captured more broadly within the reporting template for minimisation measures of Annex III substances and questions around the National Implementation Plan. In the past, POPs waste mostly covered the legacy of PCB-containing di-electric equipment, reported under the PCB directive 96/59/EC, as well as the final management options for obsolete pesticides. In recent years, the scope of POPs waste started to be enlarged due to the listing of new POPs.

Table 2.1 provides a description of the structure of this report. Each chapter refers to the main articles of the POP Regulation. This structure has been chosen to keep continuity with the previous synthesis reports for ease of review and comparison.

2.22.2    Sources of information

The main sources of information used to compile information for the period 2013-2015 include:

·Annual reports from 2013, 2014, 2015 by Member States;

·Triennial reports for the period 2013-2015 by Member States;

·National Implementation Plans by Member States;

·Notification of derogations (where relevant);

·Notification of penalties (where relevant);

·First, Second and Third synthesis reports;

·E-PRTR data;

·CORINAIR EMEP data;

·Monitoring data from EMEP and MSC-East;

·Monitoring data from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP);

·EMEP Webdab data.

The information submitted by the Member States Competent Authorities (MSCAs) on an annual and triennial basis is the core of this report. The additional sources quoted above are used as supplementary information.

Table 2.2 provides a breakdown of the information provided by MSCAs and is used in the current synthesis report.

Table 2.1    Structure of this document 

Table 2.2    Reports provided by Member States

Alongside the Member States’ reporting, the national implementation plans provide information on national issues on POPs and the actions foreseen at national level. The POP Regulation states in Article 8(2):

“As soon as a Member State has adopted its national implementation plan in accordance with its obligation under the (Stockholm) Convention, it shall communicate it both to the Commission and to the other Member States”.

Moreover, in Article 7(1)b the Stockholm Convention states that parties will develop a national implementation plan and communicate it to the Secretariat of the Convention within two years of entry into force 20 . Subsequent updates of the national implementation plan are required, but the frequency is not specifically indicated in the POP Regulation or in the Stockholm Convention.

The inclusion of nine new substances in the annexes of the POP Regulation in 2010 (Regulation (EC) 757/2010) highlighted the importance of updating the national implementation plans. This is important because the majority of the original 12 POPs included in the Convention and in the POP Regulation are obsolete pesticides, while the new substances added in 2010 are mainly industrial chemicals. In 2012 a further four substances were added to the annexes of the POP Regulation, including two pesticides and two industrial chemicals.

Table 2.3 provides the details of the current status of the national implementation plans, as reported to the Stockholm Convention. This information is used in this report to supplement the information in the Member State annual and triannual reports. For those Member States that have not provided reports under Article 12 of the POP Regulation, the national implementation plans have been used as the key reference for their activities on POPs.

This triannual report focuses on the timeframe 2013-2015. The latest available version of the NIP is indicated within the table, even if this is outside of the indicated timeframe. Information from the NIPs has been used to develop this report based on the POPs identified under the POP Regulation as of the end of 2015.

Table 2.3    Status of National Implementation Reporting

3.3.    Production

Production covers all activities involved in the manufacture of chemical substances, or articles that contain chemical substances, for the substances in Annexes I and II of the POP Regulation. POP Regulation requirements on production are listed under Articles 3 and 4, shown in the information box below:

Member States reported under Article 12 the following information on production:

Germany reported the manufacture of PFOS in volumes around 9 tonnes per annum. Quantities were exported annually, although a declining trend is indicated, falling from 5.8t in 2013, to 2.4t in 2014 and no further exports in 2015. For 2013 and 2014, almost all of the PFOS exported was to non-EU countries. A small quantity (200g) was shipped to Switzerland (EFTA country) in 2013. The remaining quantities have been used in Germany.

No other Member States have reported the intentional production of POPs during the 2013-2015 period.

Article 3(3) of the POP Regulation requires that Member States prevent the production of new chemicals and pesticides which exhibit the characteristics of POPs as defined in Annex D of the Stockholm Convention. The EU Regulations that help to control substances with POPs characteristics are summarised below.

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and restriction of Chemicals (REACH) requires that all parties producing or importing chemicals in the Union submit a registration dossier to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). This dossier has sections covering the assessment of substances for persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity (PBT) properties. The criteria for PBTs identification are detailed in Annex XIII of REACH. These criteria largely follow those of Annex D of the Stockholm Convention. However, for bioaccumulation, Annex XIII sets the bioconcentration criterion (Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) greater than 2000) at a lower level than the Stockholm Convention (BCF greater than 5000). Moreover, REACH is stricter on toxicity and refers to thresholds based on No Observed Effect Concentrations (NOEC), classification as a Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, or Reproductive toxicant (CMR), and other toxicological classification.

The REACH Regulation also sets out provisions for those substances termed ‘substances of very high concern (SVHC)’ (which includes CMRs) and ‘very persistent very bioaccumulative (vPvB)’, which typically meet the PBT criteria. SVHCs and vPvBs are subject to further review and restriction as part of the Authorisation process, which ultimately aims to remove the use of all SVHCs and vPvBs from the Union market. As of the end of 2015, 168 substances were listed on the SVHC candidate list for further review 21 .

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 lays down rules for the placing on the market and use of plant protection products (PPPs), including for their approval. It states that an active substance, which fulfils the POP, PBT or vPvB criteria, shall not be approved to be placed on the market. Similarly, Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 on the placing on the market of biocidal products stipulates that active substances that meet the PBT or vPvB criteria shall not be approved.

The mechanisms and processes of the Stockholm Convention, POP Regulation, REACH Regulation and PPP Regulation are ongoing, and it is possible for specific substances to be under review within the different systems at the same time. This requires attention to ensure consistency. A recent example of such a case is the brominated flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD). In 2012, the POPs Review Committee, acting under the auspices of the Stockholm Convention, recommended including HBCDD in the Convention’s Annex A for elimination and to remove it from the global market in order to protect human health and the environment 22 . The 2013 Conference of the Parties agreed to include HBCDD in Annex A of the Convention. Under REACH, HBCDD was identified as SVHC and added to the candidate list in 2008 and subsequently to the list of substances subject to authorisation (Annex XIV) in 2011.

The addition of HBCDD to the Stockholm Convention (which was taken over to the POP Regulation) included clauses to allow the continued use of HBCDD as per the requirements and obligations of the REACH Regulation in Europe. Under the REACH Authorisation procedure, the sunset date for HBCDD was August 2015. Applications for authorisation to continue with two uses of HBCDD were submitted and authorisations were granted 23 .

Finally, it is worth noting that on 17 April 2013, PFOS and PFOS-related substances were also listed as a priority substances in the Water Framework Directive. In 2027 Member States will have to meet the standards derived for these substances.

4.4.    Placing on the market of Annex I and Annex II substances, use and export

4.14.1    Introduction

The POP Regulation (Article 3) foresees that the production, placing on the market and use of substances listed in Annex I is prohibited. The production, placing on the market and use of substances listed in Annex II of the Regulation are restricted. According to Article 4 of the POP Regulation, certain substances can be produced and used as closed-system site-limited intermediates, provided they meet the criteria set out in that Article. The POP Regulation also states that if an article containing restricted substances is already on the market or in use at the time of the inclusion of the constituent(s) in the Regulation’s annexes, then its use can continue. The Member State has to notify the use to the Commission, which in turn will notify the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention. The POP Regulation also follows the provisions of the Stockholm Convention for the so-called ‘specific exemptions’ for some POPs in Annex I and Annex II. For the period 2013 – 2015, the substances with specific exemptions were PFOS and SCCPs 24 . Endosulfan, hexachlorobutadiene, polychlorinated napthalenes and polychlorinated biphenyls had exemptions in place for goods that had already been produced at the time of listing, with planned phase-out dates.

Based on the Article 12 submissions from the Member States, POPs that were placed on the market, used, or were exported are dominated largely by PFOS and SCCPs along with a number of other POPs that were produced in small quantities for research purposes. Since PFOS in particular has a large number of exemptions under the POP Regulation and also under the Stockholm Convention, this section of the report will focus on this substance, with substances other than PFOS discussed at the end of the chapter.

4.24.2    PFOS – placing on the market, use and export

4.2.14.2.1    Introduction and background on the substance

The PFOS definition includes a group of chemical substances used as surfactant, with the major uses as stain repellent, in metal plating and fire-fighting foams. In 2009 PFOS was included in Annex B of the Stockholm Convention and in Annex I of the POP Regulation in 2010.

The following exemptions are applicable in the POP Regulation:

1.For concentration of PFOS equal to or below 10 mg/kg in substances or preparations.

2.For semi-finished products or articles or parts thereof if the concentration of PFOS is lower than 0.1% by weight; and

3.For textiles or coated materials, if the amount of PFOS is lower than 1µg/m2 of the coated material.

For articles already in use before 25 August 2010 and fire-fighting foam placed on the market before December 2006, the use was allowed until 27 June 2011. In addition, Member States are required to report every four years on progress made in eliminating PFOS.

Additionally, under Annex I (part A) of the POP Regulation for PFOS, item 5 states that the following applications have specific exemptions:

4.Wetting agents for use in controlled electroplating systems.

5.Photoresists or anti-reflective coatings for photolithography processes.

6.Photographic coatings applied to films, papers, or printing plates.

7.Mist suppressants for non-decorative hard chromium plating in closed loop systems; and

8.Hydraulic fluids for aviation.

These uses were permitted until August 2015, providing that the quantity released into the environment was minimised. The POP Regulation also foresees that the use of PFOS is to be phased out as soon as the use of safer alternatives is technically and economically feasible 25 .

The exemption for wetting agents used in controlled electroplating systems expired in 2015. After this date the only specific exemption for use of PFOS in electroplating applied to ’mist suppressants for non-decorative hard Cr(VI) plating in closed loop systems’ 26 .

In the Union, it is obligatory to apply a closed-loop system when using PFOS-related substances as mist suppressants for non-decorative hard Cr(VI) metal plating. In addition, the European Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) is applicable to installations for surface treatment of metals or plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process where the volume of the treatment vats exceeds 30 m³. These installations must apply best available techniques (BAT) for the prevention and minimisation of emissions of PFOS described in the relevant BREF.

The definition of a closed-loop system has been much discussed in recent years, however, so far, there is no harmonised definition for a closed-loop system regarding PFOS or Cr(VI). A recent industry survey commissioned by the German Environment Agency 27 documented that there is a variety of processing equipment and manufacturing processes, such that a “one fits all” definition for closed-loop-system does not exist for metal plating. UBA [2017] comment that a closed-loop system shows the following characteristics:

·Process tanks with more efficient extraction to minimise the releases of chromium-VI aerosols, if required, encapsulated transporters with extraction system. 

·Dedicated exhaust air scrubbers with recirculation of the washing solution into the process solution. 

·Exclusively documented PFOS dosage, related to throughput and demand. 

·Recovery of the PFOS-containing chrome electrolyte by rinsing the plated products / components directly above the process baths. 

·Using multistage cascade rinsing for extensive recovery of dragged-out PFOS to achieve a high rinsing ratio with a minimum amount of excess water. 

·Using an evaporator to concentrate the rinsing solution and recovery of the dragged-out process solution while also using the excess heat of the process. 

·Return of high-concentration rinsing water to compensate for evaporation losses of the electrolytes. 

·Extending working lifetime of the PFOS containing chrome electrolyte by using a cation exchange technique to remove accumulated impurities such as contaminating metals and Cr (III) (regeneration of cationic exchanger resins with sulphuric acid and their reuse in the wastewater treatment process).

·Treatment of PFOS-containing wastewater partial flows with PFOS specific ion exchangers. 

Due to the space requirements of the necessary processing equipment, implementing all techniques and/or retrofitting all existing metal plating installations is most likely not suited. In addition, cost considerations and affordability factors may play an important role 28 . Further, according to UBA (2017), only one out of the five assessed electroplating facilities was found to apply, in principle, all nine measures listed above. The other companies were found to apply the measures only in part in an effort to close the loop for PFOS and Cr(VI).

The Assessment of PFOS compounds (European Commission, 2015 29 ) presented at the 13th Competent Authority meeting for POPs provided further detail on which Member States were using PFOS for specific applications. Table 4.1 provides details of these uses.

Table 4.1    Summary of PFOS applications in the Union

4.2.24.2.2    Article 12 information provided by Member States for PFOS

Placing of PFOS on the market

The information submitted by the Member States under Article 12 includes data, both for placing PFOS on the market as well as PFOS within applications following the specific exemptions set out under the POP Regulation. Details of the further information provided by Member States on the placing of PFOS on the market included:

9.Austria indicated that, in 2013 and 2014, PFOS was used as a mist suppressant and as a photo resist lacquer by a semiconductor company, using approximately 0.3 kg per year. No further update was received in 2015 but Austria indicated that use was continually being reduced.

10.Belgium reported in 2013 that, in accordance with the PIC regulation, a mixture containing PFOS (at 0.4%) was imported from Japan for use as anti-reflective coating for lithographic processes. Quantities were as follows: Heptadecafluorooctanesulfonic acid (CAS 1763-23-1) = 0.076 kg and CAS 380886-84-0 = 0.12 kg. However, no PFOS was placed on the market in 2014 or 2015.

11.Denmark indicated that 40 kg of PFOS had been placed on the market in 2014. This originated from a Member State for non-decorative hard chromium plating.

12.Finland indicate that two PFOS-containing products may have been imported in 2013. However, due to the number of importing companies the amounts or the country of origin cannot be disclosed. The annual use is in the range of tens of kgs. The substances in question have been registered for use in metal plating (CAS 56773-42-3) and manufacture of computers, electronic and optical devices (CAS 2795-39-3). This same information was provided in 2014 (although still quoting 2013 as the date placed on to the market) however, in 2015 Finland indicate that PFOS containing substances were being used in industry, although alternatives were being phased in. The amounts are small enough for the companies to not import them every year and thus the annual import rates vary. As in 2013, the substances in question have been registered for use in metal plating (CAS 56773-42-3) and manufacture of computers, electronic and optical devices (CAS 2795-39-3).

13.Germany indicated that 9,000 kg of PFOS were manufactured annually between 2013 and 2015, with a proportion exported (largely to non-EU countries) and the remainder used in Germany. No further indication is provided to elaborate on which specific sectors would make use of the PFOS retained for use in Germany, but the dominant application across Europe has been for use in chrome metal plating industries, and it can be expected that a significant proportion use in Germany would likely be for this purpose.

14.The Netherlands PFOS inventory showed that in 2013 about 150 kg PFOS was being used, mainly for hard chromium plating. The export database did not show any export of PFOS from the Netherlands. The same information was submitted in reports for 2014 and 2015, still referencing the 2013 inventory, so no further update on use is available.

15.Spain reported that PFOS was used in 2013, 2014 and 2015 for electro/chrome plating, with the PFOS received from Germany. Quantities were 2013: 2,065l of 3.15% PFOS, 2014: 2,470l of 3.06% PFOS, 2015: 85l of 3% PFOS. This was used by one company who have stated that they have since moved to PFOS-free alternatives.

16.Sweden indicated that PFOS and perfluorinated alkanes (PFOA) in preparations were placed on the market between 2013 and 2015. In 2013, this included 140 kg of PFOS (CAS numbers 56773-42-3, 2795-39-3, 70225-14-8). In 2014, ~ 79 kg of tetraethylammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate (CAS 56773-42-3) was received from and ~ 2 kg sent to other Member States. Finally, in 2015 ~ 55 kg of tetraethylammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate (CAS 56773-42-3) was received and ~ 1 kg sent off. All related preparations originated from other Member States.

Table 4.2 provides the quantities of PFOS placed on the market between 2013 and 2015. This data are for a small number of Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden), who have reported total quantities of PFOS use for the Union of up to 6,200 kg/yr in 2013 and up to 2,800 kg/yr in 2014. Most of this is within one Member State (Germany).

Table 4.2    Summary of PFOS being imported during the 2013-2015 period

Use of PFOS within the Union

The uses reported within the Article 12 submissions for PFOS are in the metal plating industry, in the photographic industry and the semiconductor industry. No mention is made of its use in hydraulic fluids in the aviation industry. Germany has reported using the most PFOS in both 2013 and 2014 (but provide no indication of use in 2015), followed by the Netherlands and Sweden which reported using 150 kg and 140 kg respectively in 2013. During the 2013-2015 reporting period, use has fallen in Sweden; however, the Netherlands has report has not been updated since 2014 so present use is unknown, but it would appear to have decreased since 2009 (~390 kg).

Table 4.3 provides a further overview of the uses of PFOS reported within the Article 12 reports, and details of the quantity of PFOS used in different applications.

Table 4.3    Summary of PFOS reported in 2013-2015 and their uses.

A review of the Member States’ National Implementation Plans provides further information on the usage of PFOS:

In the most recent Czechia NIP (published in 2017) the exemption for the photographic industry is used by one company, and the PFOS consumption for 2013-2015 was in the range of several tens of kg/year. However, use was expected to terminate by 2017.

Lithuania indicates in their most recent NIP (2017) that less than 1 kg of PFOS could be in use in the semiconductor industry, with small scale usage in the photographic industry and an unknown quantity in use within aviation hydraulic fluids. These uses would also have been active in the 2013-2015 period.

Sweden further reports that the use of PFOS has decreased since 2015 (55 kg), to 25 kg in 2016 (Swedish Chemicals Agency’s Product Register, 2017 Sweden NIP). The volume refers to one product used in hard chrome plating industry. Two of the three industry operators have indicated that since 2016 they no longer use PFOS in their process.

In the United Kingdom 2018 NIP, PFOS-containing stockpiles have been notified for use as a wetting agent and mist suppressant in non-decorative hard chrome plating. In 2014 a total 33,837 kg of PFOS-containing material equating to 135 kg of PFOS were notified by six companies.

Based on the data provided and reviewed, the dominant usage for PFOS within the Union in 2013-2015 was for metal plating, in particular as a mist suppressant for hard chrome plating, which, based on the data from Article 12 reports and Member State NIPs. Photographic applications are another, minor, use.

4.34.3    Substances other than PFOS – placing on the market, use and export

4.3.14.3.1    Substances placed on the market (excluding PFOS)

Article 12 reports from Member States highlighted that PFOS was the most commonly reported POP placed on the market and used within the Union. Additionally, some other POPs substances were also placed on the market and used during 2013–2015.

Austria reported that several POPs substances had been placed on the market during 2013 and 2014 but did not provide specific chemical names. In 2013, Austria report that minimal quantities of these substances were exported to Macedonia, Belize, and Kyrgyzstan as laboratory reference materials.

Belgium reported in 2013, that HCB was detected in illegal fireworks imported from China (concentrations identified were 3,302 ppm and 2,504 ppm). Belgium also imported lindane (0.005 kg) as a laboratory reference standard in 2013 and exported 0.0003 kg of PCB to Bangladesh in 2015 for research and analysis.

Denmark imported two substances including SCCPs (14.7 t in 2013, 4.93 t in 2014) and HBCDD (1.14 t in 2014) in preparations.

Spain exported small amounts of two substances in 2015 for research and analysis purposes, both to Angola: 0.5 kg of Endrin and 1.5 kg of Heptachlor.

Finland also reported in 2015 that an unknown quantity of HBCDD was imported but the companies that previously used this substance are phasing out the use.

France exported a number of substances to Mali making use of the provisions under article 14.2 for research purposes in 2014 and 2015. Prior to that, in 2013, 40 kg of Dieldrin was exported to Egypt.

Poland imported and exported a number of substances for laboratory use as reference standards in 2015 (see Table 4.4) all below 1 kg. However, 20 kg of mixtures and preparations containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs) or polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) were exported to Sweden in 2015.

Sweden indicated that 2,800 kg of chloroalkanes C10-13 were received in preparations from other Member States in 2013.

Table 4.4 summarises the information reported on placing of POPs on the market and the quantities indicated by Member States, other than PFOS.

Table 4.4    Summary of substances reported as being placed on the market or exported during the 2013-2015 period (excluding PFOS) 30

4.3.24.3.2    Use of POPs substances within the Union (excluding PFOS)

The third POPs synthesis report (2013) indicated that most of the POP substances and articles that were used were under general exemptions such as uses for research purposes. This was also observed for the current (2013-2015) reporting period where the uses reported are either for research and calibration purposes or other unknown uses. France notes some additional substances are known to be placed on the market/used, but it is not clear which ones and for what purpose. Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, and Sweden provide less detail on the exact use of substances imported/exported. The position of those Member States that did not provide Article 12 reports is unknown and not commented upon further here. Detailed information on the uses reported by Member States is shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5    Summary of uses reported by Member States for substances in 2013-2015 period (excluding PFOS)

4.44.4    Export of goods

Export of hazardous chemicals for the period 2013–2015 was controlled by the prior informed consent regulation (EC) No 689/2008, on the export and import of dangerous chemicals. This was superseded by Regulation (EU) No 649/2012, which entered into force on 1 March 2014. Regulation EU No 649/2012 carries the same provisions as Regulation (EC) 689/2008 but better aligned with the REACH Regulation.

Both the PIC Regulation and its predecessor prohibit the export of POP substances listed in Annexes A and B of the Stockholm Convention 31 . Furthermore, the PIC Regulation implements, within the EU, the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. Finally, the parties to the Basel Convention on transboundary movement of hazardous waste and its disposal are required to submit annual information on movement of hazardous wastes, including POP substances.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) keeps a record of exports and imports of PIC substances. This data is provided on a quarterly basis. Exporters and importers of PIC chemicals are required to provide details to their national competent authority with the information regarding the exact quantities of the chemical (as a substance or contained in articles or mixtures) which is shipped to or from each non-EU country during the preceding year.

Article 12 of the POP Regulation on reporting asks Member States to provide annual data on chemicals listed in Annex I or II of the POP Regulation produced or placed on the market during the period covered.

As already described earlier, the largest export concerns PFOS (5,767 kg in 2013), exported mainly from Germany, which includes:

17.Australia 100 kg.

18.Brazil 390 kg.

19.Hong Kong 225 kg.

20.India 25 kg.

21.Republic South Korea 1,576 kg.

22.Singapore 150 kg.

23.South Africa 350 kg.

24.Switzerland 0.2 kg.

25.Taiwan 250 kg.

26.Thailand 0.1 kg.

27.Turkey 700 kg; and

28.USA 2,000 kg.

Other POP substances were exported as part of articles and waste for final elimination. In the second synthesis report, some Member States only considered the export of commercial goods, excluding the export of waste for final destruction. It is unclear from the Article 12 reports submitted for 2010-2012 if there is now a common interpretation of export or if some Member State have again not reported waste. More information on POPs in waste is reported under ‘stockpiles’ (chapter 5).

5.5.    Stockpiles

The POP Regulation includes provisions for POPs or products that contain POPs already manufactured and sold but no longer permitted for use. These are considered as ‘stockpiles’ of materials which have to be managed before their final destruction in order to prevent release to the environment. Article 5 of the POP Regulation covers provisions for stockpiles as detailed in the information box below:

The following main types of stockpiles were reported by Member States during the 2013-2015 reporting period:

·PCBs in di-electric equipment. 

·Obsolete pesticides; and

·PFOS in fire-fighting foams and for surface finishing.

While the purpose of this report is to analyse the responses from Member States to annual and triennial reports covering the 2013-2015 period, reference has been made to the NIPs in order to obtain additional details.

5.15.1    Stockpiles of PCB-containing equipment

PCBs were commercially produced world-wide on a large scale between the 1930s and 1980s. Given their extraordinary chemical stability and heat resistance, they were extensively employed as components in electrical equipment, hydraulic equipment, paints, and lubricants. However, since 1985, the marketing and use of PCBs in the Union has been very heavily restricted and eventually banned.

Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of PCBs and PCTs covers the safe and complete disposal of PCBs and equipment containing PCBs and PCTs. Member States are required to develop a register of larger size equipment containing PCBs (i.e., over >5 kg) and have to adopt a plan for disposal of inventoried equipment. In addition, they have to define processes for the collection and disposal of non-inventoried equipment (e.g., small electrical equipment that can be present in household appliances). Member States were required to dispose of larger equipment by the end of 2010. However, for the period 2013-2015 this work was still ongoing in many cases.

Following the requirements of directive 96/59/EC, PCB registers must include the following data:

·The names and addresses of the holders.

·The location and description of the equipment.

·The quantity of PCBs contained in the equipment.

·The date and types of treatment planned; and

·The date of the declaration.

Any equipment which is subject to PCB registers must be labelled. Moreover, Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure that:

·PCBs, used PCBs and equipment containing PCBs which are subject to inventory are transferred to licensed undertakings, at the same time ensuring that all necessary precautions are taken to avoid the risk of fire.

·All undertakings engaged in the decontamination and/or the disposal of PCBs, used PCBs and/or equipment containing PCBs obtain permits; and

·Transformers containing more than 0.05% by weight of PCBs are decontaminated under the conditions specified by the Directive.

Furthermore, in 2001, the Commission adopted a Strategy on Dioxins, Furans and PCBs 32 aimed at reducing the release of these substances in the environment and their introduction in the food chains.

The Article 12 information reported by Member States on stockpiles of PCB-containing equipment is summarised in Table 5.1 shown below.

Table 5.1    Overview of stockpiles of PCBs 

Several Member States reported a downward trend in stockpiles of PCB-containing equipment. Croatia noted that until December 2015 a constant increase of the amount of disposed-of equipment containing PCBs was recorded. In Ireland, since 2012, there continues to be a significant decrease in the national PCB inventory volumes which can be accredited to the enforcement work undertaken by the EPA and Local Authorities. Compared to Ireland’s previous triennial report (2013) the Irish inventory of PCB stocks has declined in volume by 43,625 litres of suspect or confirmed PCB liquids, a fall of 76%. The number of transformers and capacitors containing PCB as reported by Slovenia are significantly lower compared to what was reported for the period 2010-2012, i.e., the number of total equipment (not permitted PCB containing equipment) decreased from 232 (2010-2012) to 117 (2015).

Further information on PCB stockpiles was included in Member States’ NIPs and has been summarised in Table 5.2 below, with a focus on the reporting period 2013-2015. Beyond information on di-electric sources, several of the NIPs reported information on additional types of stockpiles containing PCBs such as in buildings, sealants, paints etc.

Table 5.2 only contains information from Member States with an updated NIP compared to the version referred to in the third synthesis report. In addition to the Member States indicated in Table 5.2, other Member States (France, Hungary, Ireland, and Romania) also provided information on PCB stockpiles in their NIPs. However, those NIPs date from 2012 or earlier and were discussed in the third synthesis report.

Table 5.2    Overview of stockpiles of PCB included in NIP

Note: The UK, in its most recent NIP (2017) included no new information on stockpiles with PCB containing equipment compared to the version published in 2012.

The information reported by Member States included different levels of detail. For example, Romania reported, in its previous triannual report, information on whether the PCB equipment was in use or not and included information on the actual presence of PCBs based on the minimum/maximum share of PCBs in the contaminated soil. Ireland provided information on stockpiles (liquids) which are confirmed or suspected to contain between 50-500 mg/kg of PCBs. This is a change compared to its previous triannual report, due to changes in the PCB reporting methodology in Ireland.

In order to better understand and complement the data on PCB-containing equipment, a request for information was sent out to the Member State Competent Authorities in April 2017. Acknowledging the levels of uncertainty inherent in the estimates of PCBs in such equipment, the request asked for input on the quantities of PCB actively in use in di-electric equipment, both in 1990 and in 2015, as well as the quantities of PCBs that have been destroyed between 1990 and 2015. In total, 14 Member States responded to the request. The estimates of the fraction of PCBs still in use (%, 2015 compared to 1990) are presented in the table below.

Table 5.3    Percentage of PCB in use in di-electric equipment in 2015 compared to 1990 [responses from Member States to request for PCB data, 2017]

Note: Poland also responded to the survey, indicating that no data was available.

The majority of the Member States reported that in 2015 <10% of the PCBs were in use, compared to the reference year, i.e., 1990. Five of these Member States estimated a fraction of PCB in use below 1%. Croatia and Romania reported significantly higher PCB fractions in use, 30% and 49%, respectively. It should be noted that their estimates were based on different reference years, i.e., 2008 for Croatia and 2005 for Romania.

5.25.2    Stockpiles of PFOS

PFOS, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF) were added to Annex B of the Stockholm Convention in 2009. In accordance with Part III of Annex B to the Convention, acceptable purposes and specific exemptions are defined for the production and use of PFOS, its salts and PFOSF. After PFOS was added to Annex B of the Stockholm Convention, PFOS was removed from REACH Annex XVII and added to Annex I of the POP regulation 33 . 

Four Member States reported stockpiles of PFOS in their triannual reports (covering 2013-2015). This mainly related to fire-fighting foams containing PFOS and the use of PFOS in surface finishing processes (chromium plating).

Fire-fighting foams (Class B foams 34 ) can be synthetic foams, including aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) or alcohol-resistant aqueous film-forming foam (AR-AFFF), or protein foams. The vast majority of the fire-fighting foams currently in stock (or service) are AFFF or AR-AFFF. Fluorosurfactants are considered a key ingredient in AFFFs, providing unique performance attributes, enabling them to be effective in preventing and extinguishing fires.

PFOS salts are or have been commonly used as a surfactant, wetting agent and mist suppressing agent for chrome metal plating processes to create a protective barrier from aerosol emissions. PFOS has been used in the chromic acid solution, as other mist suppressants degrade more rapidly under the strongly acidic and oxidizing conditions. Fluorinated surfactants (including PFOS) are not reported to be used in other metal plating applications (e.g., copper plating, nickel plating, tin plating, zinc, and zinc alloy plating, electroplating of polymers) besides metal plating with chromium (VI) 35 . Table 5.4 summarises the information on PFOS stockpiles provided by the Member States.

Table 5.4    Overview of stockpiles of PFOS reported by Member States

A review of the available NIPs (which had been updated to include PFOS) highlighted additional information for Member States. Table 5.5 summarises the information included on stockpiles of PFOS for the years covered by this report (2013-2015).

Table 5.5    Overview of stockpiles of PFOS included in NIP

From the information provided by the Member States, it can be concluded that only a few stockpiles of PFOS existed in the period 2013-2015 (e.g., Germany, Spain, Luxembourg, United Kingdom), and that most Member States expect that the quantities will decrease over the next years as alternatives are available.

5.35.3    Stockpiles of obsolete pesticides

Member States are required to manage stockpiles of obsolete pesticides, i.e. pesticides containing POP substances whose production, placing on the market or use are prohibited. While the Member State reports submitted for the 2013-2015 period do identify stocks of industrial chemicals (primarily PFOS and PCBs), no stockpiles of obsolete pesticides were reported by the Member States for this period.

As a means of comparison towards progress for elimination of pesticide stockpiles, the third synthesis report (covering the period 2010-2012) identified four Member States who provided information on stockpiles of obsolete pesticides, i.e. Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania and the United Kingdom. The reported quantities varied between 88 kg in the United Kingdom to 200 tonnes in Hungary.

A review of the available NIPs highlighted additional information. Table 5.6 summarises the information included on stockpiles of pesticides for the years covered by this synthesis report (2013-2015). Member States indicated that no stockpiles were reported for the period 2013-2015 and/or that all identified stockpiles have been disposed of.

Table 5.6    Overview of stockpiles of obsolete pesticides included in NIP

6.6.    Waste Management and Storage

The end-of-life management of stockpiled POPs goods, as well as waste management for POPs within waste streams are covered by Article 7 of the POP regulation. Annex IV and V provide maximum thresholds and accepted means of disposal. The requirements of Article 7 of the POP regulation are provided in the information box below:

6.16.1    Management of waste stockpiles 

6.1.16.1.1    Introduction and background

Annex IV of the POP Regulation sets out the list of named substances subject to waste management provisions; these are the same substances listed within Annexes I, II and III (Banned, Restricted, unintentionally produced) of the regulation. Annex IV also includes the concentration limits above which the provisions of Article 7 apply, including the destruction or irreversible change of the waste to remove the POPs characteristics. Annex V provides the appropriate waste management options for meeting the obligations of Article 7 of the POP Regulation.

In 2007 the POP Regulation was amended by Council Regulation (EC) 172/2007 to include the concentration limits in Annex IV. The POP Regulation was further amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 323/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) 304/2009, which included additional measures for pre-treatment of waste and aligned the waste management options in Annex V with the requirements of the Basel Convention for metals production. The POP Regulation was further updated by Commission Regulation (EU) 1342/2014 to expand the list of substances in Annex IV (in line with Annexes I, II and III) and also to expand the number of management options in Annex V.

Alongside the POP Regulation, to further align with the Rotterdam Convention on transboundary movements of hazardous waste, the EU created the ‘Prior Informed Consent’ Regulation (EU) 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 36 . This regulation contains annexes of named substances which include those substances named within the Annexes of the POP regulation. Where such wastes are moved across political borders for final destruction only, consent is required by the receiving country first. For those substances within Annex III of the Prior Informed Consent regulation it is also a requirement for operators to notify the European Commission via their national competent authority.

6.1.26.1.2    Management of old stockpiles

In line with the nature of the substances in Annexes I - III of the POP Regulation, waste stockpiles for final destruction / irreversible transformation in the period 2013-2015 concern three key sources:

·PCBs within the heat transfer fluids of di-electric equipment.

·PFOS containing products; and

·Flame-retardants (PBDEs) used in plastics and foams, particularly those plastics involved with electronics / end of life vehicles.

The Article 12 reports submitted by Member States focused on information on stockpiles themselves (as discussed in chapter 5 on stockpiles). There is less information on how they have been managed (for example, via destruction). However, some information can be gathered from review of the national implementation plans.

PCB containing di-electric

The EU directive on PCBs, i.e. Directive 96/59/EC 37 , places requirements on Member States to develop and maintain inventories of PCB containing equipment. The same directive also placed obligations on Member States to remove and decontaminate all di-electrical equipment containing PCB of volumes ≥5 dm3 before 1 January 2010. Review of the previous synthesis reports and national implementation plans suggests that a great deal of work has already been completed for the identification, removal and destruction of PCB containing equipment, but that as of 2013-2015 work was still ongoing to identify and remove PCB volumes from large (≥5 dm3) equipment.

Stockpiles of equipment contaminated with PCBs (see Section 5) remain in eight Member States (Croatia, Czechia, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Spain, and Romania). These quantities are likely covered within active programmes of final destruction. The Article 12 reports provide more limited information on how this work is being completed.

In its triannual report, Luxembourg referred to a specific action plan, "SuperDrecksKëscht" for the collection and destruction of PCBs from households. This mainly concerns waste capacitors and electric radiators oils.

Germany stated in their NIP (2016) that all remaining PCB-containing waste was disposed of by the end of 2010. Nonetheless, for the period 2013-2015, PCB from unknown sources was identified. This concerns PCB from electronic equipment with parts containing PCB, PCB-containing wastes from construction and demolition projects, sealants, and PCB-containing parts from scrap cars. Appropriate disposal plans have been drawn up in Germany for equipment containing PCB. Transformers containing PCB were stored in underground storage facilities from 1983 and were partly drained before being placed underground. From 2004 to 2010, around 14,000 tonnes of the stored equipment were dismantled, drained, decontaminated and the metals were recovered. Small capacitors were stored in underground storage facilities until 2004. Since 2005, small capacitors containing PCB have been disposed of in high-temperature incineration plants. The quantity of PCB in still active applications such as sealing compounds or fluorescent lamp capacitors cannot be estimated. Information on proper disposal for the owners of electrical equipment and components containing PCB is partly issued.

Slovenia indicated that there are no technical facilities for disposing of PCB and PCB-containing equipment (with final disposal or destruction of PCB) in an environmentally sound manner, and that therefore the waste PCB and waste PCB equipment is exported to other Member States, i.e., France, Germany and Austria, for disposal in an environmentally sound manner.

Czechia listed in their NIP (2017) the capacity of seven facilities for the disposal of wastes containing POPs and PCBs. However, no information is provided on the amount of PCB destroyed between 2013 and 2015.

PFOS containing products

Four Member States reported stockpiles of PFOS (e.g., Germany, Spain, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom (see section 5 for further detail), with the expectation that stockpiles will decrease over the next years as alternatives are available.

Fire-fighting foams containing PFOS, which were placed on the market before 27 December 2006, had to be used up by 27 June 2011. According to Article 7 of the POP regulation, after 27 June 2011 they must be treated as waste and disposed of.

Germany indicated in their NIP that the remaining stockpiles were incinerated, whereby PFOS was thermally decomposed and no emissions were produced.

In their NIP (2018), Denmark indicated that virtually all PFOS-containing waste would be disposed of by 2016, i.e., at the end of the period 2013-2015. However, it cannot be ruled out that some PFOS would still enter the waste stream after this date, as the service life of some articles may be longer than expected. Furthermore, it is stated that the Danish EPA is undertaking a desk study on destruction efficiencies for PFOS (as well as for SCCP, PBDEs and HBCDD).

The United Kingdom (NIP, 2017) stated that all use of PFOS-foams had ceased, with appropriate disposal for stockpiles also completed. This was based on a communications and compliance campaign in 2011 by the Environment Agency. However, the substance may be present in residual forms in land resulting from PFOS-foam/water run-off occurring during past industrial incidents.

Flame-retardants (PBDEs) used in plastics and foams

Globally C-PentaBDE and C-OctaBDE were phased out in 2004 but based on their use within plastics and the polyurethane (PUR) foams used in soft furnishings they represent a significant legacy issue for waste processes.

The use of C-OctaBDE within plastics for electrical goods, in particular, is of interest and is covered at EU level by the directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (2012/19/EU) 38 . The Article 12 reports submitted by Member States contain little or no information with regard to PBDEs and final destruction.

Germany provided information in their NIP (2016) and stated that on 1 January 2016, i.e., at the end of the reporting period 2013-2015, there were 6.5 million cars in Germany that were first registered before 2000, potentially containing polybromodiphenyl ethers identified under the Stockholm Convention (POP-BDE). These accounted for a 14% share of the total car stocks of 45.1 million cars. Germany provided data, which indicated, in 2012, the proportion of cars that could potentially contain POP-BDE was 26% (compared to 46% or 18.9 million cars in 2008). This shows that the potential for vehicles containing POP-BDE is reducing over time. Germany confirmed that 2004 was considered the latest time that POP-PBDEs would have been used in products 39 . Assuming a lifetime of 10-16 years of cars and the phase out in 2004, the majority of C-PentaBDE in automotive applications would be disposed of around latest 2020.

Article 7(2) of the POP Regulation requires that waste that contains above 1000 mg/kg PBDE (sum of tetra, penta, hexa, and hepta homologues) must be treated so that the PBDEs are destroyed or irreversibly transformed. In Germany, brominated and thus PBDE-containing plastics are usually treated in thermal recovery and removal / disposal methods, in which PBDE is destroyed. Placing waste containing POPs on above-ground landfill sites is not permitted under the Landfill Regulations (Deponieverordnung). However, historically, articles from the electrical sector were also used in landfill construction and accordingly are currently present there.

Obsolete pesticide products, particularly lindane

In the triannual reports (2013-2015), Member States did not report information on the management or destruction of obsolete pesticides. For comparison, in the third synthesis report, covering (2010-2012), seven Member States (Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden) reported that no remaining stockpiles of obsolete pesticides existed within their country. For another five Member States (Finland, Germany, Greece, Portugal, and Romania) the position was unknown.

6.26.2    Identification of contaminated sites

Article 7 of the POP regulation covers management of wastes contaminated with named substances but does not specifically cover contaminated land as an issue to be addressed. However, where POPs substances have previously been manufactured and used within the Union the potential for contamination of soil does exist.

In their triannual report (2013-2015), Spain provided information on sites contaminated by HCH in four regions, i.e., Aragón, Castilla y León, País Vasco, and Galicia. In the region of Aragón, gamma-HCH was manufactured between 1975 and 1989, with the generated solid and liquid waste disposed in the landfills of Sardas and Bailin (see table below).

Table 6.1    Data on HCH contamination in two landfills in the region of Aragon, Spain

* Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

From 1992 to 2015, €54 million have been invested in decontamination in Spain (9% EU, 21% Ministry and 70% of the Government of Aragon). Many decontamination actions have been undertaken and actions are still planned, such as hydrogeological monitoring or further testing activities.

In Castilla y León analyses of water samples near the historically contaminated site indicated that no detection of lindane in any of the samples during 2013-2015. Works to carry out a detailed characterization of the soil of the area are currently planned.

Controls and monitoring are carried out in the historically contaminated areas in País Vasco. From the annual follow-up reports it is noted that during 2013-2015, as well as in previous periods, there has been no incident related to lindane contamination.

A number of the NIPs presented by EU Member States cover the topic of contaminated land and activities to address the issue which usually involves excavation and creation of contaminated waste which must be managed following Article 7 of the regulation.

Denmark stated within their NIP (2018) that a literature review of soil and groundwater contamination by PFAS (Nikolaisen and Tsitonaki, 2016) and a screening investigation of groundwater of a number of potentially contaminated sites in Denmark were undertaken (Tsitonaki et al., 2014). In the screening study from 2014, PFAS compounds were detected in five out of eight investigated fire-fighting training grounds. The soil levels varied from a few to several thousand ng/l. PFOS was detected at three of the sites in concentrations ranging from 15 to 980 ng/l. There are at least 38 large fire-fighting training grounds in Denmark. A high concentration of PFAS compounds of approximately 1,400 ng/l was found in one sample from the carpet industry in Denmark. PFOS accounted for 870 ng/l. The sample originated from a random shallow groundwater well at the site, not situated directly in an area where there was any knowledge of use, storage, or spill of PFAS.

The German NIP (2016) indicated that in 2016 more than 271,000 sites are recorded as potentially contaminated. Similar numbers may be expected for 2013-2015. Details of the number of recorded sites are given for the respective Länder in the corresponding contaminated land registers or by the German Environment Agency. These usually provide information about all uses of the land to date, their technological orientation and contamination typical for the industries concerned. During production of lindane (γ-HCH), large quantities of α- and β-HCH were created as “by-products”, which used to be stored above ground, including in Germany. With the inclusion of the compounds as POPs, these landfill sites are to be viewed as being POP contaminated sites.

The Lithuanian NIP (2017) reports that until late 2014, 1,379 warehouses of old pesticide or contaminated sites containing POPs pesticides were identified within the country. It is stated that the soil and the groundwater in these territories are likely to be contaminated with POPs.

The Swedish NIP (2017) states that due to its broad spectra of previous use, PCP could be found in a wide range of contaminated sites, for example garden centres, pulp mills, wood impregnation sites and marinas. It has been identified that treatment of wood has occurred at approximately 1,200 sites in Sweden, according to what is registered in the national database. Similar numbers may be expected for 2013-2015. At these sites PCP or similar chemicals have been used as impregnation agents. Almost half of the sites are classified with high or very high risk for negative impacts on human health or the environment. This means they are prioritised for further investigations and remediation.

Furthermore, 2,700 sites were identified where market gardens could have used pesticides. 750 of these sites are estimated to have high risk or very high risk according to the national risk classification system. Sweden also reported that several sites are known to be contaminated with PFOS, such as military and civilian airports and their surrounding water areas, industrial sites, discharge from waste treatment facilities and landfills and other areas where fire-fighting foams have been used.

Based on the review of national implementation plans, Table 6.2 provides information on where specific POPs are mentioned with regard to contaminated sites. Table 6.2 only contains information from Member States with an updated NIP compared to the version referred to in the third synthesis report. Information from the other Member States dates back from before 2013 and is reported in the third synthesis report.

Table 6.2    Discussion of contaminated land sites within recent national implementation plans (NIPs)

6.36.3    Derogations

Article 7 of the POP Regulation sets out how waste containing POPs should be managed, in particular by prohibiting the re-use/recycling and requiring destruction or irreversible change of POPs contained in the waste. Article 7(4) however sets a derogation for management and disposal of such waste for the activities included in Annex V part 2, provided the POPs concentration in the waste does not exceed the limits set in Annex IV. The derogation mostly applies to ashes, slags, and combustion materials from a range of different processes. The alternative method of disposal in Annex V part 2 is described as:

“Permanent storage only in: – safe, deep, underground, hard rock formations, – salt mines or – a landfill site for hazardous waste (provided that the waste is solidified or stabilised where technically feasible as required for classification of the waste in subchapter 19 03 of Decision 2000/532/EC)”

In order to apply this derogation, Member States are required to provide notifications and their justification concerning the use of this derogation to the Commission. In the third synthesis report, covering the period 2010-2013, it was stated that no information on new derogations had been identified for that period.

Similarly, no Member States reported a derogation in their Article 12 triannual reports covering the period 2013-2015.

7.7.    Environmental releases

The release of POPs, particularly of those substances included in Annex III as unintentionally produced POPs, represents a key issue for management of environmental concentrations. The development of emission estimates for specific sources provides to Member State Competent Authorities a key evidence base for addressing environmental emissions of POPs. Article 6 of the POP Regulation details what action Member States need to take to reduce, minimise and eliminate POPs emissions (see information box below).

7.17.1    Measures to identify and characterise sources and Steps to identify source inventories

A core requirement of the POP regulation has been the development and maintenance of emission inventories for those substances within Annex III of the regulation. These inventories are intended to provide information on source characterisation and emission trends for releases to air, land and water. The development of such inventories acts as an important evidence base to support the work included within national implementation plans for the identification of sources and minimisation of emissions to the environment.

Reporting of emission inventories is covered by Article 12 paragraph 3(b) of the POP Regulation, as part of the triennial reporting that Member States are required to complete. The development and reporting of emission inventories is also a core part of the Stockholm Convention (releases to five vectors: air, land, water, residue, and product) and the Arhus protocol of the Convention on Long range Transboundary Air Pollution (releases to air only). Development of such inventories requires the use of a range of approaches, such as:

·Monitoring at release,

·Development of estimates using ‘activity’ data combined with emission factors,

·Source flow modelling for aquatic environments.

To help in the development of inventories, international tools have been developed, such as the UNEP standardised toolkit for dioxins and furans 40 , and the EMEP guidebook 41 . The latter provides both emission factors by activity and guidance on how inventories can be developed dependent on the level of detailed information available.

In addition to the international tools described above, a number of databases of emission estimate information exist to help assess, compare, and benchmark the work completed under their own inventory development. In particular these include:

CORINAIR Emission Inventory database: EMEP Webdab

The UNECE Convention on Long range transboundary air pollution (CLRTAP) covers multiple air pollutants. POPs are specifically covered by the Aarhus protocol to the Convention. Ratifying countries are required to submit emission estimates annually to the Centre on Emissions and Projections (CEIP), which is a part of the European Environment Agency. This data is collated and managed as a central pool of information, which is publicly available through the EMEP Webdab website. The information provided covers the period from 1990 to present. It is a valuable source for Member States to compare their emission estimates. The website is available at: http://www.ceip.at/ .

The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) database

The E-PRTR was created by Regulation (EC) 166/2006. It replaces the former European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) expanding upon the number of pollutants and economic activities covered. The E-PRTR is part of Europe’s response to the Aarhus Convention on making pollutant information publicly available. It places obligations on operators through the environmental permitting to calculate emission estimates for their given facility and report back to their competent authority on an annual basis. The E-PRTR acts as the central repository for this information spanning approximately 27,000 facilities and data on emissions of 91 pollutants to air, land, and water, including the POPs listed in the POP Regulation. The E-PRTR provides emission data from regulated facilities from 2007 to present and again provides a valuable tool to Member States when deriving their own estimates. The E-PRTR website is available at: http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/ .

Other repositories of useful information for inventory development include:

·The Water Information Systems for Europe (WISE) website developed by the European Commission, Joint Research Centre, and Eurostat to provide guidance and data on water and water quality issues including monitoring and modelling.

·The US EPA 42 emission factor database which spans a wide range of regulated activities.

Table 7.1 provides a summary on the status of emission inventories reported under the Stockholm Convention, CLRTAP, and the POP Regulation. It is noted that five Member States (Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania and Malta) did not provide Article 12 responses to questions in the current reporting period, and a number of Member States did not update their NIP during this period (see Section 8), so the status of their emission inventories under the Convention and POP Regulation are unclear. Overall, however, it is noted that a greater amount of inventory data has been provided by Member States in 2013-2015 compared to the previous reporting period (2010-2012).

Table 7.1    Status of emission inventories reported for 2013-2015

◊ - PCB emissions not reported under emission inventories submitted – assumed to be negligible.

□ - Applies to dioxins and furans only.

† - Applies to PAH and HCB only.

‡ - Excluding PCBs.

1 - air emissions only. 2 - air and water emissions. 3 - air, water, and residue/products. 4 - air and residues. 5 - all vectors.

The strategy to identify, characterise and manage potential sources of POPs is part of a larger policy framework, which includes additional actions contributing to the development of emission estimates:

·UNECE Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution, ratified in 1981 and entering into force from March 1983.

·Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants as a Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, ratified in 1998.

·Council Directive 96/59/EC of September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT).

·Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register, which requires that emissions and waste transfers from specified industrial and waste management operations must be reported to the European Commission.

·Directive 2010/75/EU regarding industrial emissions (IED) which supersedes the directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC); this directive sets down best available techniques for industrial facilities and environmental permitting including reporting.

·Directive 2012/19/EU regarding control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, known as the SEVESO III Directive.

·Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regarding the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and restriction of Chemicals (REACH). In particular the elements of REACH concerning substances of very high concern and PBT assessment.

·Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 regarding the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP).

·Regulation (EC) No 649/2012 on the export and import of hazardous chemicals.

·Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a community framework for water policy, known as the Water framework directive.

·Directive 2013/39/EC concerning the establishment of environmental quality standards (EQS) for water which identifies lists of priority and priority hazardous substances. Following on from the water framework directive obligations are placed on Member States to develop inventories of losses and releases to surface water for priority and priority hazardous substances to be communicated to the EU through river basin management plans.

·Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

·Convention for protection of the marine environment of the north east Atlantic (OSPAR) which includes specific provisions regarding the release of persistent pollutants to marine waters.

·UNEP Barcelona Convention ratified in 1975 for the protection of Mediterranean which includes specific provisions regarding the release of persistent pollutants to marine waters.

·UNEP Rotterdam Convention ratified in 2004 covering trade of specific hazardous materials and transboundary movements of such chemicals.

·UNEP Basel Convention ratified in 1989 covering the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes.

7.27.2    Emission inventory estimates for Annex III substances 

Article 6(1) of the POP Regulation requires Member States to develop, maintain and report the details of emission inventories for those substances named within Annex III of the regulation. These should be reported to air, land, and water. This section of the report provides a summary of the information reported by Member States under Article 12 but has also been supplemented by emission estimates reporting to both the UNEP Stockholm Convention and the UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

In providing a summary of the emission inventories, it is also necessary to detail some of the terminology, in particular in relation to the development of emission inventories for the Stockholm Convention which requires data on the following five vectors:

‘Air’ – relates to all emissions of POPs directly to air, deposition (wet or dry) and re-volatisation, to air which can be important pathways for long range transport, are not covered within this definition. Only the initial release should be estimated.

‘Water’ – relates to all emissions of POPs directly to water.

‘Land’ – relates to all emissions of POPs directly to land, a good example being bonfires or backyard burning where the contaminated ash is lost directly to land.

‘Residue’ – relates to contaminated solid wastes, which are subsequently managed, again a good example might be air pollution control residues (ash), which are consigned to a managed landfill site.

‘Product’ – relates to POPs substances within a product, for inventories an example might be the granulated slags or ashes from combustion, which can be used within aggregate for road surfacing.

7.2.17.2.1    Dioxins and Furans (PCDD/F)

Dioxins and furans are a family of 210 congeners. The family of congeners vary in toxicity making analysis and comparison to health effects complex. To help quantify dioxins and furans, a system of toxic equivalent factors (TEFs) was developed, based on toxic equivalent to the most toxic and carcinogenic congener, 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Two systems of TEFs are in existence denoted by the suffix I-TEQ for the NATO system and WHO-TEQ for the WHO system. A more detailed explanation of TEFs is provided within Appendix A of this report. The summary provided within this chapter will be based on I-TEQ unless otherwise clearly stated.

Dioxins and furans have no known commercial use and have never been manufactured intentionally for any purpose. Typically, they are produced as a by-product of incomplete combustion processes and can sometimes be formed de-novo within the exhaust systems of manufacturing / combustion plants where the correct temperature range exists to allow such formation. Because dioxins and furans are formed in this fashion the key emission vector has been to air as exhaust stacks of combustion processes, or where open burning occurs (such as bonfires) there is also a potential for direct release to land as contaminated ash.

Figure 7.1 provides a breakdown of the key sources for dioxin and furan emissions to air based on the data provided by Member States to the UNECE for the CLRTAP protocol on POPs between 2013–2015.

Figure 7.1    Sources of emissions of dioxins and furans to air for the EU 28 in 2015 (UNECE reported data)

Figure 7.1 highlights the importance of so-called ‘diffuse’ sources to the overall release estimates for air. The UNECE data for 2015 indicate total EU28 emissions of dioxins and furans to air of 3,105 g I-TEQ. The main contributions are from the energy sector (27%); combustion in domestic residences, likely linked to solid fuels such as coal (23%); and incineration of waste (19%).

The total EU28 emissions are notably much higher than reported in the previous synthesis report (2010-2012), and the distribution of sources is also noted to be different to that reported in the third synthesis report, which was dominated more by residential combustion. This shift can be largely attributed to an increased number of Member States reporting their emissions, particularly Greece, for which emissions of dioxins and furans is shown to be relatively high (contributing over 39% of the EU total).

As detailed later in this section, releases of dioxins and furans into the environment have seen a sharp decline since 1990 when the first UNECE inventories began (with the notable exception of Greece). Much of this decline has been the result of improved processes and abatement within industry. However, the diffuse sources are becoming increasingly important as industrial sources fall. This is also an issue for inventory compilation as the diffuse nature of such burning events makes estimation difficult and typically these sources within inventories have the highest levels of uncertainty.

Figure 7.2 provides an adjusted pie-chart to include only those sources from regulated industrial sites. Based on this revised pie-chart the key sources of dioxin and furan emissions to air are from combustion in the energy (40%) and waste incineration (29%) sectors. This represents a notable change from the previous reporting period (2010-2012), where emissions were reported to be dominated by combustion within industry and metals manufacture.

Figure 7.2    Sources of emissions of dioxins and furans to air (EU 28) – Regulated sites only (UNECE reported data)

Figure 7.3 provides a breakdown of dioxin and furan emissions to air for 2013–2015 by Member State based on the data submitted to the UNECE protocol on POPs. The graph helps to identify where the highest quantities of dioxins and furans have been reported, with annual emissions ranging from <1 g I-TEQ to >1,300g I-TEQ.

The highest levels of dioxin and furan emissions reported in 2015 are in Greece (1,230 g I-TEQ, 39%), with other key contributions from Poland (290 g I-TEQ; 9%), Italy (280 I-TEQ; 9%), and the United Kingdom (190 I-TEQ; 6%). As noted above, the inclusion of Greece in the emissions reporting in this synthesis report is the cause of a deviation compared to the third synthesis report, where the highest proportion of emissions to air was from Poland, Romania, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

Upon further investigation of the emission of PCDD/F in Greece, there is reasonable agreement in the emissions data reported under the EMEP and E-PRTR databases. The E-PRTR indicates that, in 2015 there were 7 facilities in Greece reporting total PCDD/F emissions of 633 g to air from seven facilities. Four of these facilities, contributing 99% of these emissions, were thermal power stations and other combustion installations.

This value for emissions from the energy sector is reflected in the EMEP Webdab data for Greece in 2015 (658 g I-TEQ, 54% total emissions). The other key source revealed in the EMEP data for Greece in 2015 is incineration of clinical waste (429 g I-TEQ, 35% total emission). This is substantially higher than other Member States, and it is noted that emissions from this sector in Greece have increased substantially since 1990 during the current reporting period.

The figure also presents some basic information on emission trends over the period from 2013–2015. This illustrates that the majority of Member States show a largely static level of emissions on an annual basis with a small number showing a general increase in the levels of emissions between 2013 and 2015.

Figure 7.3    Dioxins and Furans emissions to air by Member State (2013-2015) 42

The figure also presents some basic information on emission trends over the period from 2013–2015. This illustrates that the majority of Member States show a largely static level of emissions on an annual basis with a small number showing a general increase in the levels of emissions between 2013 and 2015.

Compared to the previous synthesis report (2010-2012), a notable reduction can be seen for Croatia which had higher emissions in the third synthesis report. Conversely, there has been an increase in dioxin and furan emissions to air between the last and this (current) synthesis report in France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Spain.

Table 7.2 helps provide additional context on these estimates, including data on the 1990 vs 2015 annual emission estimates and emission reduction, as well as per capita emissions by Member State for 2015. The mean average fall in dioxin and furan emissions to air since 1990 shows a 62% reduction. However, for specific Member States, notably Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Romania, the fall in emissions has been much greater with a decline of ≥95%. Overall, nearly all Member States have shown a decline in emissions of dioxins and furans between 1990 and 2015 with the lowest reductions being 19% for Slovenia and 12% for Poland.

Table 7.2 illustrates that the per capita emissions of dioxins and furans ranges from 0.5 - 114 µg / person / year with an average of 9 µg / person / year. As expected, Greece has the highest per capita emissions (114 µg / person / year) with the next highest value reported by Slovakia (12 µg / person / year). Most Member States have per capita emission values <5 µg / person / year. Table 6.8 also provides details regarding the reduction of emissions since 1990 with the biggest reductions in the Czechia, Spain and the United Kingdom with emissions reduced by over 95%. The one Member State reporting an increase in emissions during this period is Greece, where emissions are reported to have risen 45% between 1990 and 2015.

Table 7.2    Emissions reduction for dioxins and furans, and per capita emissions based on data reported under the UNECE POP Protocol

Reporting of emissions of dioxins and furans to other vectors beyond air is more limited with only 11 Member States reporting emissions to more than one vector to either the Stockholm Convention or to the European Commission as part of the Article 12 reporting. Table 7.3 provides a summary of these emissions estimates including air as a comparative vector. The key point to note from Table 7.3 is the comparison between emissions to air and land/residue. Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom report emission estimates for concentrations of dioxins and furans within residues and/or land. Broadly similar levels of emissions are quoted between air and land/residue in Austria, Czechia, and Sweden, with these estimates suggesting that residue is a much more significant emission vector than air.

The United Kingdom and Estonia report emissions of dioxins and furans to both land as a direct release and also to the ‘product’ vector, with very good agreement between the two for the proportion of total emissions to each vector.

Releases to land are likely to be dominated by the open burning of waste, as well as accidental fires. As with other Member States the regulated sources have seen a sharp decline in the release of dioxins and furans to all vectors, meaning that the unregulated sources, particularly backyard burning have become increasingly important. Developing estimates for these sources is particularly difficult due to the diverse and widespread nature of the activity. Actions to control emissions in several Member States have focussed on these sources (see Section 8).

Table 7.3    Emissions of dioxins and furans to all vectors based on those reported to the EU and Stockholm Convention

NR – Not reported

The estimates quoted from the United Kingdom for the product vector, which in 2015 amounted to 145 g I-TEQ, relate to those waste materials from combustion processes re-used within the cements and aggregates industry. While APC residue is highly toxic and treated as hazardous waste, ashes from bottom grates tend to be less contaminated and represent an inexpensive material which can be used within aggregates industries, particularly for road surfacing materials. The POP Regulation provides guidance under Annex IV on threshold concentrations above which waste contaminated by POPs must be destroyed and cannot be reused. Given the quantities involved it is assumed based on communication with waste incinerator operators that those materials reused within aggregate industries are bottom ashes with concentrations below the Annex IV thresholds.

The data submitted to the European Commission under Article 12 have been compared with data available under the UNECE POPs Protocol and Stockholm Convention and in the E-PRTR. Figure 7.4 provides an overview of emissions to air for dioxins and furans based on total number of sites that reported data to the E-PRTR (173 regulated sites). In contrast to the data reported in 2012 (which was dominated by iron and steel foundries), the key industrial sources are dominated by thermal power stations (82.5%) with production of pig iron or steel casting as the next most significant source (8%) of emissions to air in 2015.

Figure 7.4    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of dioxins and furans to air (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 17/01/2019)

The data on emissions to air (from the E-PRTR) suggests that emissions to air are dominated by the energy sector (thermal power stations and other combustion facilities), with the main contribution coming from Greece (65%), which has only 7 of the 173 facilities, while countries with greater number of facilities, e.g. United Kingdom (21) and Spain (22) have much smaller contributions to total emissions (~4%). These observations are consistent with the data from the POPs Protocol, discussed above.

One notable discrepancy to note, however, is that the E-PRTR data reviewed, indicates a substantial (98%) decline of emissions in Czechia from 2013 to 2015, which can be attributed to the reduction or closure of one specific facility. This is not reflected in the trend in overall emissions observed in Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.5 provides an overview of E-PRTR data based on all sites that reported dioxin and furan releases to water (34 regulated sites in total) across the Union. This chart shows that emissions are dominated by emissions from oil and gas refineries (94%). It is noted that this is attributed to two specific facilities in Spain. Many PCDDs and PCDFs are formed during the regeneration of spent catalyst material in the refining industry which then end up in waste streams; however, such wastes are tightly controlled by environmental legislation requiring appropriate levels of treatment. It is unclear whether the estimates are a genuine reflection of true emissions or an artefact of methodological approaches.

Figure 7.5    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of dioxins and furans to water (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/01/2019)

Table 7.4 provides a comparison of the total quantities of dioxins and furans emitted to air between different emission inventories, namely POPs protocol, the POP Regulation and the operator reporting for the E-PRTR. For the E-PRTR, it is important to note that there are reporting thresholds below which data is not required and that reporting is only required for activities listed in Annex I of the E-PRTR regulation. The data reported under the POP Regulation and POP Protocol will also include unregulated sources such as accidental fires.

Table 7.4    Comparison of emission estimates between inventories

*633g of this total is from 4 thermal power station facilities in Greece.

Note that not all Member States reported data under Article 12, leading to important discrepancies in the data.

The three inventories present different estimate levels and trends over this reporting period. While the E-PRTR data suggests a continuing decline in emission from 2013-2015, the POP Protocol data (from EMEP) suggest total emissions have remained largely static over 2013-2015. It should be noted that a time trend cannot be inferred from the data submitted by Member States under Article 12 of the POP Regulation, as the emission totals are dependent on the number of Member States submitting information. This number of member states reporting was much higher in 2013 (18) than in 2015 (7) and there were member states with significant sources of emissions that did not report for 2015.

7.2.27.2.2    Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Polychlorinated biphenyls are a family of chemicals consisting of two benzene rings joined by a single carbon to carbon bond and with a variable number of chlorine atoms. In total 209 different congeners exist based on the number and position of chlorines on the basic structure. As with dioxins and furans, the toxicity of individual congeners varies across the whole spectrum. 12 congeners have been identified by the World Health Organisation as having carcinogenic effects and have been more closely aligned with dioxins and furans. These 12 congeners are known as ‘dioxin-like PCBs’.

PCBs have been widely used in the past, particularly as heat transfer fluids within di-electric equipment. They also found widespread use as lubricants for turbines and pumps and in the formulation of cutting oils for metal treatment, sealings, adhesives, paints, and carbonless copy paper 43 . The production of PCB as a commercial product within Europe began in the 1930s reaching its peak around the 1970s, with commercial goods using the trade names Aroclor and Clophen 44 . Production is believed to have ceased around the end of the 1980s but the long service life of large scale di-electric equipment in electric distribution networks presents a serious legacy issue.

PCBs can also be created during thermal processes where a source of chlorine and organic matter are present.

Figure 7.6 is based on data reported to the UNECE for CLRTAP over the period 2013–2015 and presents the major sources of PCB emissions to air in the Union. The PCB emissions are dominated (52%) by ‘consumption of POPs and heavy metals. This source includes use of electrical equipment (mainly capacitors and transformers), PCBs as dielectric fluids, leaks from transformers and capacitors, fragmentising operations, and disposal of electrical equipment containing PCBs). This represents a much higher contribution than reported in the previous (2010-2012) reporting period (32%).

Closer review of the temporal and sectoral trends in PCB emissions, reported in the EMEP Webdab dataset, suggest that one of the most important PCB emission sources in Europe in 2000 was iron and steel production (2,285 kg: 33% of total). The total and percentage contribution of this source has since declined substantially, contributing 428 kg (12%) in 2015. This would suggest that, over the past 20 years, PCB emissions from industrial sources have declined with the introduction of more efficient combustion and abatement processes, while the emissions from electrical equipment and wastes have declined a lot more slowly, leading to an increasing relative proportion from this source to the EU total.

Other major sources of PCB emissions to air in the current reporting period include residential combustion of fuel (particularly solid fuels like coal and waste wood) (15%), and also metals manufacture (13%).

Figure 7.6    Sources of PCB emissions to air for the EU 28 (UNECE reported data, 2015)

Figure 7.7 provides a breakdown of PCB emissions to air for 2013–2015 by Member State, while Table 7.5 provides details of emission totals reported to the UNECE for 1990 and 2015, emission reduction and emissions per capita. As with the similar graph of dioxins and furans, Figure 7.7 shows a mixture of trends with the emissions in some Member States declining, although a broadly static level of emissions in most Member states is apparent.

Figure 7.7 highlights three Member States - Poland (25%), the United Kingdom (24%) and Croatia (17%) - as the highest emitting nations in 2015, which is broadly consistent with the previous reporting period. Austria and Greece started reporting emissions during the current reporting period and estimates have changed little over the 3-year period.

Comparing data reported in Figure 7.7 with that reported for the 2010-2012 period indicated that in Poland and the United Kingdom PCB emissions have declined across both reporting periods. Emissions in Croatia have remained relatively static.

Production of crude steel in electric furnaces tends to generate PCB because of surface contamination or use of degreasing agents prior to smelting. In the context of unintentional emissions of PCBs from metal manufacture, the world steel organisation 45   reported on the production rates of crude steel in electric arc furnaces in 2015. The highest rates of steel production for the EU in 2015 came from Italy (17.2 Million of tonnes), Germany (12.6 Million of tonnes), Spain (10.1 Million of tonnes), France (5.2 Million of tonnes).

Figure 7.7    PCBs emissions by Member State (2013-2015)

Table 7.5 provides further details on the variation in emission estimates. The per capita emission estimates range from 0.01 mg/person/year to 106 mg/person/year. It is unclear what impact source gaps and differences in inventory approach will have on this large variation in per capita estimates. Overall, the average emission per capita per year for the EU is 11 mg/person/year. The highest per-capita emissions of PCBs are reported for Croatia (>100 mg/person/year), with the next highest being Slovenia (18 mg/person/year).

Table 7.5 also provides details of emissions reductions with the greatest levels of per annum emission reduction between 1990 and 2015 coming from Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Latvia and the United Kingdom, which all saw emissions fall by over 90%. Other Member States with significant reductions in emissions to air include Germany, Luxembourg and Romania.

Other Member States (e.g., Cyprus, Finland, Spain, and Sweden) had either static levels or a small (2 to 9%) increase in emissions between the years 1990 and 2015, suggesting no change in emission of PCBs over a 25-year timeframe.

Table 7.5    Emissions reduction for PCBs and per capita emissions based on data reported under the UNECE POP Protocol*

* a negative percentage shows an increase in emissions

The majority of reported data for PCB emission estimates relate to the air vector. However, a small number of Member States do report data to other vectors as part of the Article 12 reporting to the European Commission and also to the Stockholm Convention. Table 7.6 provides a breakdown of the emission data to illustrate the importance of the different emission vectors listed under the Stockholm Convention.

The data from Table 7.6 illustrate large differences between key vectors reported by different member states. Belgium, France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom highlight air as the key pathway, likely from volatisation of PCB in di-electric equipment, along with combustion from industrial sources. The Netherlands highlights water as the main emission pathway, most likely relating to water usage and contamination within the metal manufacture sector. Czechia and Sweden suggest that residue is the main pathway for PCBs, likely through the management of contaminated wastes from di-electric equipment, metals manufacture and air pollution control residues from combustion of solid fuels and waste incineration.

Table 7.6     Emissions of PCBs to all vectors based on those reported to the EU and Stockholm Convention 

NR - Not Reported

As a further comparison of estimated PCB emissions to air and other vectors a review of the data reported to the E-PRTR for 2015 was also undertaken. Figure 7.8 provides a summary of the data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of PCBs to air from 32 facilities. The pie chart demonstrates that around 43% of all emissions in 2015 related to the manufacture of iron and steel. Other key source sectors include disposal of non-hazardous waste (22%), oil refineries (19%) and thermal power stations for energy generation (11%). Taken together, these three sources account for almost all of the PCBs emitted to air.

It is noted that, from reviewing the E-PRTR data, a shift in emission distribution is observed, with a declining contribution from oil and gas refineries, which could be attributed to the reduction or closure of facilities in Spain during this period (2013-2015).

Figure 7.9 provides a breakdown of the main sources within the E-PRTR for release of PCBs to water. In this case the estimates reported by 14 facilities are dominated by urban wastewater treatment works (75%), with the other main contributor being industrial-scale production of basic organic chemicals (18%). The main contributor to the urban wastewater emission is reported to come from Italy (85%), with smaller contributions from Belgium, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Figure 7.8    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of PCBs to air (taken from the E-PRTR website 46 on the 27/1/2019

Figure 7.9    Data reported to the E-PRTR for emissions of PCBs to water (taken from the E-PRTR website on the 27/1/2019)

Table 7.7 provides a comparison of the emission inventory estimates for the UNECE, E-PRTR and Article 12 reporting to the European Commission. The three inventories agree regarding the emission trend, which is declining year on year. However, the total estimates range from 56 kg to 3500 kg in 2015.

As with the discussion of dioxins and furans above, it should be noted that a time trend cannot be inferred from the data submitted by Member States under Article 12 of the POP Regulation, as the emission totals are dependent on the number of Member States submitting information. This number was much higher in 2013 (18) than in 2015 (7).

Table 7.7    Comparison of PCB emission estimates between inventories