113
restrict PFOS to include PFOA as well. This proposal was motivated with a reference saying that the US EPA had found the risks of the latter substance to be of
‘similar concern’ (European Parliament 2006 ). After an unusually rapid legislative
process, the Parliament and Council then agreed on a directive that was more restrictive than the Commission’s proposal on general limit values for PFOS in products
and against fi refi ghting foams, but did not regulate PFOA, as the Parliament had
proposed (EC 2006c ). The restriction was eventually moved over to the REACH
regulation when it entered into force and then to EU’s so-called POPs regulation
(EU 2010b ).
15
PFOA, as mentioned above, was not restricted in the EU co-decision procedure,
but it was said that the European Commission shall keep substitutes and ongoing
risk assessment activities under review and propose risk-reducing measures when
needed (EC 2006c ). Presently, PFOA is on the REACH Candidate List as a
Substance of Very High Concern , which means that it eventually might be a target
for an authorisation process (ECHA 2013 ).
Turning to environmental quality, PFOS was included in WFD and the Priority
Substance Directive after it was revised recently. The Priority Substance Directive
required Member States to implement stated quality standards by 2018 and attain a
good surface water chemical status by 2027 at the latest (EU 2013 ). The quality
standard is based on the most sensitive parameter for PFOS, namely, secondary
poisoning (KEMI 2013b ). In MSFD , one of the descriptors (number 8) covers
PFOS, and on that basis, Member States shall defi ne precise targets for a ‘good
environmental status’ to reach by 2020 at the latest, through programmes to be
implemented in 2015–2016 at the latest (EC 2008a ). No similar environmental
quality stipulations exist for PFOA .
5.5.2 HELCOM Policy
PFOS was included in the work of HELCOM in particular after BSAP was adopted
in 2007. In the plan, the Parties agreed to ‘start by 2008 to work for strict restrictions
on the use in the whole Baltic Sea catchment area of the Contracting States of…
perfl uorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)’. PFOA was also included in BSAP in the same
manner as decaBDE , namely, that by 2009, ‘if relevant assessments show the need’
to initiate adequate measures in some sectors, for instance, use restrictions
(HELCOM 2007 ). PFOS and PFOA were both listed among the 11 substances of
‘specifi c concern’ in BSAP and in the most recent Recommendation (31E/1) listing
‘priority hazardous substances’ (HELCOM 2010c ), but only PFOS later became a
HELCOM Core indicator (HELCOM 2013b).
15 PentaBDE was included at the same time. In simultaneous amendment of Annex IV and V of the
same regulation ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:223:0020:0
028:EN:PDF ), new provisions regarding waste management also came.
5 Governance of Chemicals in the Baltic Sea Region: A Study of Three Generations…
restrict PFOS to include PFOA as well. This proposal was motivated with a reference saying that the US EPA had found the risks of the latter substance to be of
‘similar concern’ (European Parliament 2006 ). After an unusually rapid legislative
process, the Parliament and Council then agreed on a directive that was more restrictive than the Commission’s proposal on general limit values for PFOS in products
and against fi refi ghting foams, but did not regulate PFOA, as the Parliament had
proposed (EC 2006c ). The restriction was eventually moved over to the REACH
regulation when it entered into force and then to EU’s so-called POPs regulation
(EU 2010b ).
15
PFOA, as mentioned above, was not restricted in the EU co-decision procedure,
but it was said that the European Commission shall keep substitutes and ongoing
risk assessment activities under review and propose risk-reducing measures when
needed (EC 2006c ). Presently, PFOA is on the REACH Candidate List as a
Substance of Very High Concern , which means that it eventually might be a target
for an authorisation process (ECHA 2013 ).
Turning to environmental quality, PFOS was included in WFD and the Priority
Substance Directive after it was revised recently. The Priority Substance Directive
required Member States to implement stated quality standards by 2018 and attain a
good surface water chemical status by 2027 at the latest (EU 2013 ). The quality
standard is based on the most sensitive parameter for PFOS, namely, secondary
poisoning (KEMI 2013b ). In MSFD , one of the descriptors (number 8) covers
PFOS, and on that basis, Member States shall defi ne precise targets for a ‘good
environmental status’ to reach by 2020 at the latest, through programmes to be
implemented in 2015–2016 at the latest (EC 2008a ). No similar environmental
quality stipulations exist for PFOA .
5.5.2 HELCOM Policy
PFOS was included in the work of HELCOM in particular after BSAP was adopted
in 2007. In the plan, the Parties agreed to ‘start by 2008 to work for strict restrictions
on the use in the whole Baltic Sea catchment area of the Contracting States of…
perfl uorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)’. PFOA was also included in BSAP in the same
manner as decaBDE , namely, that by 2009, ‘if relevant assessments show the need’
to initiate adequate measures in some sectors, for instance, use restrictions
(HELCOM 2007 ). PFOS and PFOA were both listed among the 11 substances of
‘specifi c concern’ in BSAP and in the most recent Recommendation (31E/1) listing
‘priority hazardous substances’ (HELCOM 2010c ), but only PFOS later became a
HELCOM Core indicator (HELCOM 2013b).
15 PentaBDE was included at the same time. In simultaneous amendment of Annex IV and V of the
same regulation ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:223:0020:0
028:EN:PDF ), new provisions regarding waste management also came.
5 Governance of Chemicals in the Baltic Sea Region: A Study of Three Generations…