104
(EEC 1976a ) provided ground for restrictions on substances and preparations, in
themselves or in products, but a ban on the use of PCBs was not included until 1985
(EEC 1985 ) when the EC in BSR included West Germany and Denmark. Nowadays,
this ban is incorporated in the REACH regulation (EC 2006a ) for industrial chemicals, which has replaced much of the earlier legislation.
4
Besides for the general ban, a number of other policy and regulatory tools targeting PCBs have been developed, including a directive governing disposal of PCB
that aims for a phase-out of equipment with PCB by 2010 (EC 1996 ), a ‘Strategy for
dioxins , furans and PCB’
5 (European Commission 2001 ) and recommendations and
regulations for maximum levels of certain contaminants in foodstuff. Compared to
directives, which Member States themselves are responsible for achieving, running
the risk of ending up in the European Court of Justice in case of non-compliance,
regulations are directly binding all over the EU, i.e. they have a stronger and more
immediate legal power. PCBs were mentioned in the food contamination regulation
of the EC ( 2001 ), but limit values came fi rst with EC ( 2006b ) for dioxin-like PCBs
and EC ( 2011 ) for non-dioxin-like PCBs. However, Sweden , Finland and Latvia
have all argued for and been granted derogations, which at the time of writing were
still in place, meaning that it is allowed in these countries to sell contaminated fi sh
to the national populations at large, in spite of opposing views from expert agencies
(EC 2001 ; SNFA 2011 ).
When it comes to the presence of PCBs in the environment as such, the general
1976 directive on limit values for dangerous substances in water (EEC 1976b ) did
not include PCBs specifi cally.
6 Neither did the original Priority Substances Directive
(EC 2008b ), sometimes referred to as a daughter directive to the Water Framework
Directive (EC 2000 ), which sets environmental quality standards for 33 substances
or groups of substances. Recently though, amendments of the WFD and the Priority
Substance Directive (PSD) included dioxin -like PCBs. In the case of PSD, Member
States have to implement applicable environmental quality standards by 2018 in
order to reach a good surface water chemical status by 2027 at the latest, by the
means specifi ed in the Water Framework Directive (EU 2013 ).
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC 2008a ), which is based on EAM
and the precautionary principle, includes a focus on what the European Commission
has decided to call ‘contaminants’ (according to the so-called Descriptor 8), which
to a large extent are priority substances in WFD and PSD (EU 2010a ), including
PCBs. Member States are responsible to further defi ne more precise targets for
these hazardous substances as well as programmes to achieve a ‘good environmental status’ by 2020. The Baltic Sea is one region in which this has to be done (EC
4 A general ban is also included in another EU Regulation, which aims to implement the Stockholm
Convention on persistent organic pollutants, one of which is PCBs (EC 2004 ).
5 The strategy lists all EU measures that by then were taken to mitigate PCB pollution (not all of
these are discussed in this study), and the strategy was followed up in 2004 and 2007 (for the latter,
see:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0396&from
=EN ).
6 Organohalogens were referred to in general though.
M. Karlsson and M. Gilek
(EEC 1976a ) provided ground for restrictions on substances and preparations, in
themselves or in products, but a ban on the use of PCBs was not included until 1985
(EEC 1985 ) when the EC in BSR included West Germany and Denmark. Nowadays,
this ban is incorporated in the REACH regulation (EC 2006a ) for industrial chemicals, which has replaced much of the earlier legislation.
4
Besides for the general ban, a number of other policy and regulatory tools targeting PCBs have been developed, including a directive governing disposal of PCB
that aims for a phase-out of equipment with PCB by 2010 (EC 1996 ), a ‘Strategy for
dioxins , furans and PCB’
5 (European Commission 2001 ) and recommendations and
regulations for maximum levels of certain contaminants in foodstuff. Compared to
directives, which Member States themselves are responsible for achieving, running
the risk of ending up in the European Court of Justice in case of non-compliance,
regulations are directly binding all over the EU, i.e. they have a stronger and more
immediate legal power. PCBs were mentioned in the food contamination regulation
of the EC ( 2001 ), but limit values came fi rst with EC ( 2006b ) for dioxin-like PCBs
and EC ( 2011 ) for non-dioxin-like PCBs. However, Sweden , Finland and Latvia
have all argued for and been granted derogations, which at the time of writing were
still in place, meaning that it is allowed in these countries to sell contaminated fi sh
to the national populations at large, in spite of opposing views from expert agencies
(EC 2001 ; SNFA 2011 ).
When it comes to the presence of PCBs in the environment as such, the general
1976 directive on limit values for dangerous substances in water (EEC 1976b ) did
not include PCBs specifi cally.
6 Neither did the original Priority Substances Directive
(EC 2008b ), sometimes referred to as a daughter directive to the Water Framework
Directive (EC 2000 ), which sets environmental quality standards for 33 substances
or groups of substances. Recently though, amendments of the WFD and the Priority
Substance Directive (PSD) included dioxin -like PCBs. In the case of PSD, Member
States have to implement applicable environmental quality standards by 2018 in
order to reach a good surface water chemical status by 2027 at the latest, by the
means specifi ed in the Water Framework Directive (EU 2013 ).
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC 2008a ), which is based on EAM
and the precautionary principle, includes a focus on what the European Commission
has decided to call ‘contaminants’ (according to the so-called Descriptor 8), which
to a large extent are priority substances in WFD and PSD (EU 2010a ), including
PCBs. Member States are responsible to further defi ne more precise targets for
these hazardous substances as well as programmes to achieve a ‘good environmental status’ by 2020. The Baltic Sea is one region in which this has to be done (EC
4 A general ban is also included in another EU Regulation, which aims to implement the Stockholm
Convention on persistent organic pollutants, one of which is PCBs (EC 2004 ).
5 The strategy lists all EU measures that by then were taken to mitigate PCB pollution (not all of
these are discussed in this study), and the strategy was followed up in 2004 and 2007 (for the latter,
see:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0396&from
=EN ).
6 Organohalogens were referred to in general though.
M. Karlsson and M. Gilek