Delivering environmental benefit from the use of Environmental Quality Standards: why we need to focus on implementation

The UK has adopted a broader approach to the introduction of Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) for the aquatic environment than many other jurisdictions around the world, with a greater focus on the implementation of scientifically derived standards. This follows the publication of a report by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1998 which drew attention to the need to recognise that whilst an EQS is often just viewed as a numerical value, it also has other important characteristics that need to be recognised if it is to be a practical and effective regulatory tool. One of the aspects that has not always been recognised was that of implementation assessment, i.e. the steps needed to ensure that a standard actually delivers environmental benefit or improvements. In many jurisdictions, there is considerable technical and sometimes political emphasis on the numerical value of the EQS (e.g. the critical concentration in an environmental matrix like water), including the method of derivation, the scrutiny of the reliability and relevance of the ecotoxicity test data and extensive deliberations of unquantified uncertainties in relation to the choice of assessment factor. The regulatory value of an EQS only comes through a comparison against a measured environmental concentration, yet only relatively limited regulatory effort has historically been expended on this component of the classic environmental risk assessment paradigm. For example, there needs to be an acceptable (i.e. small) uncertainty in the EQS, an appropriate analytical method and detection limit in the correct matrix, a method to deliver a comparison with the EQS and a robust statistical method to draw unbiased conclusions about environmental risk. In addition, we argue that there is a case for checking the consequences of introducing a standard against field data, wherever possible. This validation of the EQS rarely happens currently. We explain what implementation assessment is and why it is needed. We give examples of how implementation assessment can be integrated with EQS derivation and also present examples of what happens when the focus is only upon the derivation of a numerical value. It is clear from this evidence that advances in derivation methods need to be coupled with practical solutions of implementation if we are to realise environmental benefit from an EQS in a cost-effective manner.

[1]  Graham Merrington,et al.  Accounting for metal bioavailability in assessing water quality: A step change? , 2016, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[2]  P. Santschi,et al.  Silver concentrations in Colorado, USA, watersheds using improved methodology , 2002, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[3]  Adam Peters,et al.  Accounting for both local aquatic community composition and bioavailability in setting site-specific quality standards for zinc , 2013, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[4]  Graham Merrington,et al.  Assessment of the effects of nickel on benthic macroinvertebrates in the field , 2013, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[5]  C. Schlekat,et al.  Does the scientific underpinning of regulatory tools to estimate bioavailability of nickel in freshwaters matter? The European‐wide environmental quality standard for nickel , 2016, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[6]  Mark Crane et al. Derivation and use of environmental quality and human health standards for chemical substances in water and soil , 2013 .

[7]  P. Paquin,et al.  Biotic ligand model of the acute toxicity of metals. 1. Technical Basis , 2001, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[8]  W. Stubblefield,et al.  Cross-species extrapolation of chronic nickel Biotic Ligand Models. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.

[9]  Dennis R. Helsel,et al.  Insider Censoring: Distortion of Data with Nondetects , 2005 .

[10]  Thomas James,et al.  Feasibility of a Monitoring Mechanism Supporting a Watch List under the Water Framework Directive , 2014 .

[11]  P. Paquin,et al.  Biotic ligand model of the acute toxicity of metals. 2. Application to acute copper toxicity in freshwater fish and Daphnia , 2001, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[12]  Richard J. Williams,et al.  Particulate and colloidal silver in sewage effluent and sludge discharged from British wastewater treatment plants. , 2014, Chemosphere.

[13]  It Istituto Superiore di Sanit,et al.  Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance document on euthrophication assessment in the context of European water policies. (Technical report 2009-030; Guidance document 23) , 2009 .

[14]  Mark Crane,et al.  Use of field data to support European Water Framework Directive quality standards for dissolved metals. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  Occurrence and Concentration of Dissolved Silver in Rivers in England and Wales , 2011, Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology.