Österreichische Vereinigung für das Gas und Wasserfach
ÖVGW
Förderung der Fachbereiche Der Verein, dessen Tätigkeit nicht auf Gewinn gerichtet ist, bezweckt die Förderung des Gas- und Wasserfaches und verwandter Fachgebiete (wie z.B. Stromnetz, Siedlungswasserbau, Fernwärme) in wissenschaftlicher, technischer, wirtschaftlicher und rechtlicher Beziehung. Dazu zählen insbesondere das Studium und die Fortentwicklung der technischen und wirtschaftlichen Methoden der Versorgung aufgrund der jeweils neuesten Erkenntnisse von Wissenschaft und Technik. Förderung der Mitglieder Der Verein bemüht sich um die Wahrung der Interessen seiner Mitglieder, insbesondere der Gasnetzbetreiber, der Wasserversorgungsunternehmen sowie der Hersteller und Vertreiber von Erzeugnissen für das Gas- und Wasserfach, gegenüber Behörden, Körperschaften und anderen Stellen sowie um deren Beratung in wirtschaftlichen, technischen und besonderen rechtlichen Angelegenheiten der Gasnetzbetreiber und Wasserwirtschaft sowie der verwandten Fachgebiete. (...)
ID: 100244333713-68
Lobbying Activity
Response to European Water Resilience Strategy
24 Feb 2025
Safe and secure water services are of critical importance for everyone. Safe drinking water is not just a prerequisite for human life and health but lies at heart of every economic activity and the well-being of people and the environment as a whole. Drinking water services are facing multiple challenges including climate change, pollution, environmental degradation, rising costs and standards, population and economic growth, urbanisation and the international security context. In light of these pressures a holistic European Water Resilience Strategy comes at the right time in order to strengthen the resilience of our water supplies and European society and economy now and in the future. The European Water Resilience Strategy provides a unique opportunity to lay the foundations for mainstream water resilience and encourage Member States to drive its implementation. Steps to build water resilience through this strategy will contribute to making water resources more sustainable and Europe more resilient and assist Member States in complying with existing directives including the Water Framework Directive, Critical Entities Resilience Directive and Drinking Water Directive, amongst others. The EU objectives of building a more competitive, resilient and self-sufficient society and economy cannot be achieved without water resilience.
Read full responseResponse to Commission Directive amending Annex III of the Nitrates Directive
16 May 2024
OVGW would like to express its deep concern regarding the Commissions draft act to amend Annex III of the Nitrates Directive and its potential impact on drinking water resources. The Nitrates Directive (Directive 91/676/EEC), which was adopted more than 30 years ago to protect water quality by preventing nitrates from agricultural sources from polluting ground- and surface waters and by promoting the use of good farming practices, is a key piece of legislation in contributing to the goals of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). OVGW calls the Commission to: - Ensuring that the protection of water bodies, especially those used for drinking water, remains in the very core when amending the Nitrates Directive. - Carry out an accurate and thorough impact assessment of its proposal. - Utilise a substitution approach instead of an addition one, when allowing for the use of RENURE fertilisers. OVGW would like to stress, that the purpose of the Nitrates Directive is to protect water resources by preventing nitrates from agricultural sources. Any change in the Directive should have the protection of water resources at its core rather than transforming the Directive into a nutrient management one, even more so if this is at the expense of the protection of drinking water resource.
Read full responseResponse to The protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Evaluation
7 Mar 2024
Die EU-Vorschriften über Nitrat (EU Nitrat-Richtlinie; Richtlinie 91/676/EWG vom 12. Dezember 1991 zum Schutz der Gewässer vor Verunreinigung durch Nitrat aus landwirtschaftlichen Quellen) schützen die Wasserqualität, indem sie die Verunreinigung durch Nitrat aus der Landwirtschaft verringern und verhindern. Die Wasserqualität in der EU hat sich verbessert, doch kann die Verunreinigung durch Nitrat nach wie vor ein ernstes Problem darstellen. Die EU Nitrat-Richtlinie ist im Hinblick der Ziele der Umwelt- und Klimapolitik nach wie vor ein wesentlicher Faktor eine nachhaltige und widerstandsfähige Landwirtschaft und Ernährungssicherheit zu erreichen. Die EU Kommission hat im Dezember letzten Jahres eine Konsultation zur Evaluierung gestartet: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14051-Schutz-der-Gewasser-vor-Verunreinigung-durch-Nitrat-aus-landwirtschaftlichen-Quellen-Bewertung_de Dabei werden die Relevanz, die Kohärenz und die Wirksamkeit, die Effizienz und der EU Mehrwert evaluiert. Die EU Nitrat-Richtlinie bietet schon jetzt die Möglichkeit sensible Gebiete auszuweisen, verpflichtet die Mitgliedstaaten Aktionsprogramme und Maßnahmen zu setzen, um den Gehalt von Nitrat in Böden und Gewässern auf einem umweltverträglichen Niveau zu halten, bzw. Konzentrationen zu senken. Weiters sieht sie umfangreiche Monitoring- und Aufzeichnungspflichten vor. Aus Sicht der ÖVGW besteht aktuell kein Bedarf die EU Nitrat-RL zu überarbeiten. Seit 1991 hat sich die Nitratsituation im Bereich Grundwasser allgemein verbessert. Bei einzelnen Grundwasserkörpern in Österreich wird das Ziel von Nitratkonzentrationen < 50 mg/l noch nicht erreicht (https://info.bml.gv.at/dam/jcr:15467631-fc61-4694-aecf-5f26eb3b1a11/Nitratbericht%202020.pdf). Betroffen sind dadurch vor allem Brunnenanlagen für die Trinkwasserversorgung in Ostösterreich. Dies ist auf mangelnde Umsetzung der EU Nitrat-Richtlinie zurückzuführen. Trotz mehrerer richtungsweisender EUGH Erkenntnisse gegen verschiedene Mitgliedsstaaten sind für die Wasserversorger nach wie vor die Ziele der EU Nitrat-RL nicht in nationales Recht durchsetzbar. Zusammenfassend ist festzustellen, dass es in vielen Mitgliedsstaaten die Möglichkeiten, welche die EU Nitrat-RL zum Schutz der Wasserressourcen vor Verunreinigung durch Nitrat bieten würde, in der nationalen Umsetzung nicht ausgeschöpft werden. Daher ist es derzeit nicht möglich zu beurteilen, wo Defizite im Regulativ der EU Nitrat-RL bestehen. Wesentliche Verbesserungen bestehen zweifelsfrei in der nationalen Umsetzung. Eine Änderung der bestehenden EU Nitrat-RL könnte bestehende rechtliche Erkenntnisse des EUGH und deren Umsetzung gefährden.
Read full responseResponse to Drinking water - procedures and methods for testing and accepting final materials
14 Nov 2023
Art 2 Def. 16: It should be clear that all substances includes organic substances not on the positive lists, due to they are not expected to be present in the drinking water at levels exceeding 0,1 µg/l and inorganic constituents in cementitious materials. Def. 18: Microbial growth is not limited to organic and cementitious materials, so skip type of material. An I - 2.2.3.b +An III - 2.2.3.b: Starting substances not on the positive list should not be allowed in organic materials or cementitious materials, even if migration rate is not exceeding 0,1 µg/L and these are not classified according REACH and CLP. These provisions are loopholes that will reduce the confidence that drinking water suppliers can have in the regulation based on article 11. There is a contradiction between article 11 and annex IV of the DWD. Article 11, 4. says that The European positive lists shall contain the only starting substances, compositions or constituents that are authorised for use as referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2. The possibility to use other substances then those on the positive lists is introduced in the annex but is excluded in the main text. An I 2.2.1: Values of 0,02% for RG1, 0,05% for RG2 and 0,1% for RG3 should be removed. All substances intentionally added in a product should be declared without thresholds. An I 2.2.4 Tab 2 & 3: LOD (Limit Of Detection) should be changed to LOQ (Limit Of Quantification) An I 2.2.4 Tab 3 & 4: The large difference of MTCtap between primary aromatic amines and secondary amines is not justified: some of these secondary amines are also aromatic. Moreover, secondary amines can lead to nitrosamines especially in case monochloramine is used as disinfectant. The lower of the two MTCtap should be retained. The LOQ for nitrosamines should be lowered to 10ng/L, in line with drinking water parametric values in some MS. Annex I Ch 3: Skip year of publication of an EN standard. Annex I Ch 4 Table 6: According to the Precautionary Principle, it is advised to set the MTCtap at 0,1 µg/L. Act 1 states that The acceptance methodology should be based on a reasonable worst-case risk assessment of each relevant substance. An approach such as the Threshold of Toxicological Concern recommended by EFSA should be used. This applies to both identified substances without a known MTCtap and unidentified substances. For the sum of unidentified substance it is advised to set the MTCtap at 0,5 µg/L. Annex I Ch 4 4.3.1 + Annex III 4.3.1: The pass/fail criteria for TON, TFN is set at 8.0 for the 3rd migration period or for the 9th migration period. An II Ch 3 - 3 & 4.2 : The reference to the dynamic rig test method described in EN 15664-1 should be included, as it is in Act 1. An III: Fly ash can be added to concrete for cementitious materials and up to 5% residual carbon is allowed in fly ash. The amount of unspecified organic substances that are unintentionally added to concrete with fly ash could be as high as the addition of intentional added substances that are on the positive list. Therefore fly ash should be considered to be an organic constituent of cementitious materials. An III Ch 3 - 3.1: The testing conditions: refer to EN 14944-1 and 14944-3 for experimental conditions An III Ch 3 - 3.2.2 : Refer to EN 15768, similarly to organic materials. An III Ch 3 - 3.2.3 : Refer to EN standards for TOC, Odour... An III Ch 3 - 3.3: Refer to CEN/TR 16364, similarly to organic materials An IV Ch 3 - 3.2.4: Testing with both chlorinated and non-chlorinated water should not be restricted to PAH analysis.
Read full responseResponse to Drinking water - establishing the European Positive Lists of starting substances
14 Nov 2023
General comment EurEau supports the full ban of all PFAS uses, including all PFAS starting substances in Annex I Table 1 of the Annexes of Act 2. There are at least 14 PFAS in the EUPL list. Some compounds (for example EUPL 0757, 0752 in Annex I Table 1 of the Annexes of Act2) have these characteristics: 1. technical function is not monomer 2. not having a harmonized classification under REACH- No data available The TOTAL PFAS parametric value under DWD is 500 ng/L. For the interim period before total ban of PFAS, it must be noted that accepted migration cant cause exceedance of the parametric value in drinking water. The Draft Act 4 Annexes Annex I. 2.2.3 Acceptance of starting substances allows migration up to 100 ng/L, which too much to comply with e.g. the PFAS requirement in drinking water. Unless and until a full ban is in place, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances should be systematically tested due to their widespread dissemination in the environment, since PFAS are a major issue in EU and should be considered as an obliged migration parameter to be tested. Reference: OECD New Comprehensive Global Database of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) [consulted 21/10/2023] https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/portal-perfluorinated-chemicals/ Recital 1 The Recital states that Sacrificial anodes, membranes and ions exchange resins are water treatment chemicals and/or filter media and are covered by Article 12, therefore they are excluded of the scope of Article 11. Membranes and ion exchange resins should not be considered as treatment chemicals and/or filter media. These materials are produced by polymerisation processes including monomers and other additives. Moreover, updated EN-standards to test membranes (EN 12873-4:2021) and ion exchange resins (EN 12873-3:2019) as products intended for use in contact with drinking water are available, membranes and ion exchange resins should not be excluded from the scope of article 11. This restriction should be deleted and membranes and ion exchange resins should be included in the scope of all these Acts. Recital 3 It should be clarified how the Member States should provide the information that is needed to determine the allocation factor. Annex 1 Table 1 All substances should first be assessed according to REACH and CLP legislations before the first publication of the positive lists. eg: tetrafluoroethylene is categorized as Carcinogenic 1B according to the REACH regulation 1907/2006. All PFAS should also be assessed in priority before the positive lists will be published. A full ban of PFAS should be applied (at least for EUPL numbers: 0329, 0359, 0403, 0723, 0729, 0730, 0751, 0752, 0754, 0757, 0767, 0775, 0819, 0963 corresponding to the CAS numbers 1187-93-5, 1623-05-8, 3825-26-1, 329238-24-6, 51798-33-5, 13252-13-6, 958445-44-8, 37486-69-4, 908020-52-0, 19430-93-4, 1190931-27-1, 1547-26-8, 27619-97-2, 9002-84-0) The drinking water Total PFAS parametric value at 500 ng/L should be considered too. Substances with a significant health danger should be removed from this list before its first publication.
Read full responseResponse to Drinking water - methodologies for establishing and amending the European Positive Lists
14 Nov 2023
Annex I Introduction Definitions: Inorganic constituents of cementitious materials are not regulated in the acts. Since the concrete industries are rapidly changing and are looking for alternatives to Portland cement clinker as binder for concrete there is need for a regulation of alternative binders such as slag, fly ash, silica fume, volcanic ashes and others. The regulation of materials in contact with drinking water should include inorganic constituents of cementitious materials. Annex II Table - 2.5.2 Composition of metallic materials: The manufacturing process should be taken into account on a relevant level of details. The manufacturing process is not always the same, even when the composition of the metallic material is the same. Annex V - Section 1 - No standard information or testing: Add substances for which EFSA has published a scientifically based opinion on tolerable daily intake to the list of cases when no standard information or testing is required. Annex V Section 2 Part 1 - 1.4: The principle "the higher the migration, the greater the amount of data required" should be substituted by the precautionary principle and an approach like the TTC recommended by EFSA. If Ctap < 2.5 microg/L and the toxicity of the substance is high, the first approach could not guarantee that the data generated to fulfill the information requirements are adequate for risk assessment. See EFSA Guidance https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5708 Annex V - Section 2 Part 1 Tables 1 to 3: Migration concentration limits are defined at 2,5 µg/L and 250 µg/L. It should be clarified how these limits were defined. Some substances can have toxicological effects others than mutagenicity and genotoxicity at concentrations lower than 2,5 µg/L. PFAS are a good example of immunotoxic compounds with a low migration concentration from materials, certainly below 250 µg/L. The migration concentration cannot define the toxicological properties to be provided. All substances should be evaluated according to the same toxicological properties and their migration concentration limit should be defined according to their toxicity. Annex VI Section 1 - 3: The draft ECHA guidance document on the drinking water directive (Guidance on the DWD Vol I: Methodologies for testing starting substances, compositions and constituents for use in the manufacture of materials or products in contact with water intended for human consumption. Draft Version 1.1) requires Mutagenicity studies, not Genotoxicity studies. Table 4 (p78) in Chapter 6.3 of this document mentions Mutagenicity studies in case of Low migration tier Ctap < 2.5 μg/l. But point 2.4.1 says "If the Ctap < 2,5 µg/l and screening genotoxicity tests are negative: MTCtap = 2,5 µg/l". Annex VI Section 2 Part 2 - 2.4.2: Technical detail to be corrected: The ALF factor should be set at 0,1, similarly to Chapter I.4 in Annex 6, where a specific migration limit divided by 20 shall be used (0,1/2= 1/20)
Read full responseResponse to Drinking water - Establishing the procedure for amending the European Positive Lists ('EUPLs')
13 Nov 2023
Recital 4 It is stated that the Commission should be empowered to request the Agency to prepare and submit an application. It is not clear what process will initiate a request from the Commission to the Agency and does it mean that a national public authority cannot submit an application ? Recital 8 (...) states that Sacrificial anodes, membranes and ions exchange resins are water treatment chemicals and/or filter media and are covered by Article 12, therefore they are excluded of the scope of Article 11. Membranes and ion exchange resins should not be considered as treatment chemicals and/or filter media. Membranes and ion exchange resins are produced by polymerisation processes including monomers and other additives. Moreover, updated EN-standards to test membranes (EN 12873-4:2021) and ion exchange resins (EN 12873-3:2019) as products intended for use in contact with drinking water are available. We consider that membranes and ion exchange resins evidently fall under the scope of article 11. To avoid misunderstandings the following phrasing could be used: Membranes and ion exchange resins are produced by polymerisation processes including monomers and other additives therefore they are in the scope of Article 11. Chapter III Article 3 - §6 The text should specify whether a competent authority can ask for an application covering several starting substances, compositions, organic constituents, nanoforms or entries. Chapter III Article 6 Who constitutes interested parties should be specified.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of lists of pollutants affecting surface and groundwaters
23 Jan 2023
In the current draft, the three directives (WFD, GWD, EQS) are changed in one go, which contributes to the coherence between the directives. The directives are relevant to the drinking water supply insofar as they contain quality targets and monitoring obligations for groundwater and surface water. OVGW welcomes, that the lists of substances have been expanded and now also contain the newly included drinking water parameters of Directive 2020/2184. Monitoring obligations for groundwater and surface water are also the data basis for the risk assessment of catchment areas of drinking water abstraction points according to the EU Drinking Water Directive (DWD; Article 8). The drinking water supply must be secured now and in the future. The EQS lists are an effective means of protecting the environment and contribute to maintaining a safe drinking water supply. If environmental quality standards are exceeded, the EU and the Member States are obliged to take measures to contain emissions. In line with Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) these measures should above all be source control measures. However, newly defined threshold values should not lead to a situation where existing and future drinking water treatment plants cannot continue their operation, as concentrate or flushing water can no longer be discharged into receiving waters. Coherence between EU legal requirements ensures comprehensive protection of the aquatic environment and human health in the long term. Integrating EQS into EU legislation through source control measures as described above, can ensure that water resources are protected for generations to come, ensuring environmental sustainability and biodiversity. Substance emission control measures require a stronger link between EQS compliance and REACH, IED, CLP, SUD, Pharmaceutical and Biozide Regulation. Measures to curb emissions should primarily be control-at-source measures, not end-of-pipe solutions at water utilities. The proposal (RL 2022/0344) does not contain any clear requirement that measures must be taken primarily at the source. In addition, the deletion of the existing Articles 16 and 17 of the WFD weakens the phase-out provisions. While these requirements have not established a clear hierarchy to promote control at source measures, the removal of the 20-year timeframe does not send a good signal and has not been replaced by a shorter timeframe or any other phase-out mechanism. We are critical of the fact that, on the one hand, the requirements for good chemical status are being tightened and, on the other hand, upstream legislation - registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemical substances (REACH), industrial emissions directive (IED) - is being delayed or weakened. This increases the risk that end-of-pipe technologies will be seen as the most effective means and barrier between human activities and the environment and drinking water. Especially with regard to climatic impairments on the qualitative and quantitative availability of water resources, it will not be possible in the future to give up water abstraction points. Water suppliers may have to use groundwater of impaired quality for the drinking water supply in order to be able to guarantee the supply of sufficient amount of drinking water. Therefore, the protection of drinking water resources must have top priority qualitatively and quantitatively.
Read full responseMeeting with Sarah Wiener (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)
15 Dec 2022 · SUR, pesticide residues in water, importance of monitoring of pesticide use for drinking water suppliers
Response to Soil Health Law – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils
16 Mar 2022
We welcome the Commissions initiative to propose a Soil Health Law in order to provide a comprehensive EU legal framework for soil protection, comparable to the level of water resource protection. As Austria draws its drinking water 100% from ground water resources, Austrian drinking water suppliers depend largely on well protected resources.
A proper soil health law supports the proper functioning of soil ecosystems and therefore protecting water quality and quantity.
We particularly support:
• adequate integration and coordination of soil and water management;
• the development of indicators for soil health and groundwater and a strict range of values ;
• monitoring and reporting on the condition of soil and groundwater;
• measures that can contribute to reducing nutrient losses by at least 50% without deterioration in soil fertility (resulting in the reduction of fertiliser use by at least 20%) at the same time reducing potential contamination with hazardous substances;
• requirements for the sustainable use of soil so that its capacity to deliver ecosystem services is not hampered;
• options to identify, register and remediate contaminated sites, and to apply the polluter pays principle;
• reporting on the progress in managing soil contamination and;
• options for a passport for excavated soil;
• long-term land use regulation to secure sufficient space for groundwater protection and drinking water safeguard zones.
Soil as a reservoir for groundwater
We would like to emphasize the important role soils play in water purification and infiltration. The Soil Health Law should include concrete objectives aimed at protecting drinking water resources by improving groundwater quality and quantity, and thereby contribute to reaching the goals of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This necessitates among others, reducing agricultural emissions from manure/fertilizers and pesticides as well as remediating contaminated sites that have a serious negative impact on drinking water resources. Therefore, the effectiveness of the Soil Health Law and its target achievements should also be determined by the effects on groundwater quality and on the protection of drinking water supply. This includes adequate monitoring of groundwater quality and identifying polluting substances for the drinking water supply. From a quantitative aspect, soils – especially humus - play a vital role in storing waters, preventing surface run-off and reducing floods.
Healthy soils to protect water
Soils play a vital role for water management. A healthy soil with sufficient organic matter has a buffer function for the water system, increases the filter capacity for groundwater, reducing the sensitivity to drought and flooding; thereby contributing to climate change resilience. Wetlands, peatlands and rural or urban nature-based solutions help storing and infiltrating rainwater locally. This prevents long distance surface water run-off and improves groundwater recharge rates. The Soil Health Law should enshrine the interdependence between water and soil. Hence, the Soil Health Law should incorporate the simultaneous monitoring of soil and groundwater quality, mainstreaming water quality monitoring objectives. Coupled with supporting the continuous development of knowledge on the positive role healthy soils play in further reducing diffuse pollution of groundwater.
Although sewage sludge contains valuable nutrients, sludge must undergo a thorough analysis and risk assessment before applying it on agricultural areas to avoid unintentional contamination with PFAS, pharmaceuticals or other substances of emerging concern.
*The Austrian Association for Gas and Water (ÖVGW) represents the interests of Austrian drinking water suppliers. Its members supply around 80% of Austria’s population with drinking water. 100 % of Austrian drinking water comes from groundwater.
Read full responseResponse to Measures to reduce microplastic pollution
10 Jan 2022
• The provisions (polluter-pays principle) of Article 192.2 (TFEU) must be respected.
• The lack of harmonised test methods or definitions should not delay action, as there is ample evidence of microplastics (MP) in all environmental compartments.
• Although no available evidence suggests that MP at current concentration levels pose a risk to human health, emissions of MP at source should be stopped following the precautionary principle.
• The EU has so far failed to tackle MP at source. The legal acts, this initiative wants to link with, are ‘end-of-pipe’ directives (UWWTD, SSD, GWD, EQSD). The proposed control-at-source measures for MP are insufficient.
• The initiative largely ignores the Green Deal by focussing on technical feasibility and enforcement instead of starting from EU ambitions on climate, zero pollution, circular economy, soil health, etc. It tackles symptoms, leaving the root causes (fast fashion, excessive car use) untouched.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU legislation on hazard classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals
31 May 2021
• ÖVGW is the Austrian Association for Gas and Water, representing more than 250 water suppliers, supplying more than 70% of Austria’s population.
• ÖVGW welcomes the zero-pollution action plan as part of the European Green Deal together with the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability for a toxic free environment with the aim to better protect the environment – and drinking water resources - against hazardous chemicals.
• Drinking water suppliers have been raising concerns about persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) and very persistent, very mobile (vPvM) substances as they still can be detected decades after their withdrawal from the market in several cases.
We support the review of the CLP to amend the absence of classification and labelling of hazardous products currently outside of the CLP regulation, in order to prevent the continued release of PMT /vPvM substances and other hazardous substances into the environment.
Protection of drinking water resources – groundwater and surface water bodies – must be the top priority to avoid expensive extra treatment by drinking water suppliers, inline with EU WFD Art. 7 (3).
Hazard classification and labelling must be based on the extension of the generic risk approach.
In line with article 191.2 of the TFEU, any sustainable chemicals strategy must start from rigorous control-at-source measures and fully apply the precautionary principle.
For this reason, we support the extension of the generic risk approach (GRA) to all chemical substances so that they are regulated according to the intrinsic hazards they pose to human health and the environment.
The hazard based approach should permeate the classification and labelling of CLP. This hazard approach is aligned with the measures, included in the objectives and policy options in the CLP IIA, i.e. “introduction of new hazard classes (such as endocrine disruptors, EDS)” and “the obligation to provide information of hazards on the label for products currently outside the scope of CLP”. New hazard classes should cover EDS, PFAS, pharmaceuticals and other PMT and vPvM substances.
Combination effects must be determined.
We support efforts to determine and regulate the combination effects of priority chemicals and to include this in the authorization process of chemicals. We also support the need highlighted in the IIA for clarifying “the obligations to classify mixtures and complex substances”, considering the combination effects. Close coordination with the work under the Water Framework Directive, the Groundwater Directive and the EQS Directive is necessary.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU legislation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals
31 May 2021
• ÖVGW welcomes the zero-pollution action plan as part of the European Green Deal together with the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability for a toxic free environment with the aim to better protect the environment – including drinking water resources - against hazardous chemicals.
• Drinking water suppliers have been raising concerns about persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) and very persistent, very mobile (vPvM) substances as they still can be detected decades after their withdrawal from the market in several cases.
• We support the review of the REACH to close the knowledge and regulatory gaps, in order to prohibit the continued release of PMT /vPvM substances and other hazardous substances into the environment.
• Protection of drinking water resources – groundwater and surface water bodies – must be the top priority to avoid expensive extra treatment by drinking water suppliers, inline with EU WFD Art. 7 (3).
In line with article 191.2 of the TFEU, any sustainable chemicals strategy must start from rigorous control-at-source measures and fully apply the Precautionary Principle.
For this reason, OVGW supports the IIA Policy option for reforming the restriction process by extending the generic risk approach (GRA) to all chemical substances so that they are regulated according to the intrinsic hazards they pose.
Currently, REACH explicitly takes into account the risks posed by indirect exposure of humans via the environment through consumption of food, drinking water and inhalation of air, which are influenced by releases of substances into the environmental compartments of air, water and soil. ÖVGW advocates for an adjustment of the risk characterisation, so that it also comprises a general life cycle assessment of the effects of releases on water quality – especially if relevant to drinking water resources - and on the possibility to achieve the goals of the Water Framework Directive and the Drinking Water Directive. Furthermore, removing hazardous chemicals in water resources after their use phase, is neither effective nor sustainable. In particular, this applies to pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and PFAS.
The IIA policy option for reforming the restriction process includes extending the GRA to restrictions to PBT/vPvT. We call for the addition of mobility (included in the IIA to define the likely environmental impacts) and for the swift definition of PMT and vPvM substances as categories of substances of very high concern under REACH. The intrinsic properties of PMT/vPvM pose serious long-term risks for the quality of drinking water resources.
We strongly support the use of group restrictions. The rapidly increasing number of PFAS on the market, has led to a ubiquitous deposition of PFAS in the environment. PFAS intrinsic properties and the sheer amount of PFAS substances require a group approach (regulation by class) to avoid the long-term pollution of our aquatic environment.
It should be avoided to have consumers bearing extra treatment costs of drinking water to meet the strict PFAS parametric values stipulated in the new DWD. The burden of installing extra and costly treatment capacities to remove PFAS from the water cycle must not be put on the shoulders of water operators but rather the polluters pays principle and the extended producer responsibility scheme shall be applied. With this in mind, we support the PFAS Action Plan and the Commission Staff Working Document on PFAS (14/10/2020) which should lead to the phase out of all non-essential uses.
We welcome the policy option of the IIA to make operational the concept of ‘essential use’ when developing restrictions. We ask for developing a common definition of non-essential uses according to the Montreal Protocol.
We support efforts to determine and regulate the combination effects of priority chemicals and to include this in the authorisation process of chemicals. Close coordination with the work under the WFD, the EQSD and GWD is necessary.
Read full response