Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

Parliamentary questions
PDF 26kWORD 41k
3 May 2010
E-2996/10
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2996/10
by Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE)
to the Commission

 Subject: Revision of the list of priority substances under the water framework directive
 Answer in writing 

Zinc has not been identified as a hazardous substance by the monitoring data recently forwarded to the Commission by the Member States. It is, however, included among the substances currently under examination with a view to the revision of the list of priority substances under the water framework directive, on the basis of the results of the EU's risk assessment carried out pursuant to Council Regulation 793/93/EEC(1).

In the EU's risk assessment, the conclusions on risk levels were based on the local presence of levels in excess of the predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) level in certain waters in the Union, in accordance with the conclusion of monitoring activities carried out before 2000. The EU's risk reduction strategy explicitly calls for the updating of the monitoring data used for risk assessment before zinc is included as a priority substance under Directive 2000/60/EC(2). The recent reports including post-2000 data carried out by the Member States represent a response to that call.

According to the data made available to the industry, the 90P PEC value registered in the recent reports is that of the PNEC (PEC/PNEC risk ratio <1 — evaluation pursuant to the EU's risk assessment principles). The data of the updated reports indicate, then, that no risk is associated with zinc in EU waters and that the results of the risk assessment do not justify classifying zinc as a priority substance under Directive 2000/60/EC.

Can the Commission explain the grounds on which zinc has been included as one of the substances under consideration for the revision of the list of priority substances under the water framework directive?

(1)OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.
(2)OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

Original language of question: ROOJ C 138 E, 07/05/2011
Legal notice - Privacy policy