Second and Third Air Quality Daughter Directives:
Consultation Paper

A consultation document on the transposition of EC Directive 2000/69 which sets health based limit values for carbon monoxide and benzene, and EC Directive 2002/3 which sets target values and long term objectives for ozone.

Summary of responses to the consultation, 16^th August - 8^th November 2002

INTRODUCTION

1. The Department issued a consultation paper in August 2002 seeking views on the proposed transposition of two EC Directives:
   • 2000/69/EC (the Second Daughter Directive) which sets health based limit values for carbon monoxide and benzene; and
   • 2002/3/EC (the Third Daughter Directive) which sets target values and long term objectives for ozone.
2. Similar papers covering Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were published by the Devolved Administrations.
3. The areas highlighted for comment in the paper were:
   • whether the proposed amendments fully transpose the requirements of the Directives;
   • the Government does not intend to transpose the benzene derogation in Directive 2000/69/EC (which allows for exceedence of the limit value for a limited period in areas where the limit value is difficult to achieve because of site-specific dispersion or climatic characteristics, or because achieving the limit value would entail severe socio-economic problems). Respondents were invited to comment on whether they thought this approach was appropriate.
   • Any other comments were also invited.

SUMMARY

4. The consultation paper attracted relatively little comment, with 6 responses being received. This reflects the fact that Directive 2002/3 sets target rather than limit values for ozone; and that the limit values set by Directive 2000/69/EC are in the process of being incorporated in the National Air Quality Strategy. A recent consultation paper on the revisions to the National Air Quality Strategy, which included the new limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide, received a considerably larger number of comments. In the light of this consultation, it was decided to incorporate the limit values specified by Directive 2000/69/EC in the Strategy.

DIRECTIVE 2000/69/EC - the Second Daughter Directive

Comments on the Regulations

5. None of the respondents saw any reason why the Regulations would not fully transpose the Second Daughter Directive.
6. No respondents disputed the decision not to transpose the benzene derogation
7. The Regulations transposing the Second Daughter Directive take the form of amendments to The Air Quality Limit Values Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/2315), which transposed the Air Quality Framework Directive (1996/62/EC) and the First Daughter Directive (1999/30/EC).
8. Two respondents pointed out that the Regulations as drafted referred to national standards which have not been finalised (Regulation 3(13)(b)).
   • The Regulations have been altered to reflect this.
9. There was also some questioning of the use of the word 'uncertainty' instead of 'accuracy', and the use of 'fixed measurement' rather than 'continuous measurement', in Regulation 3(13). Concern was expressed that this wording led to inconsistency of terms with the original Directive.
   • Directive 2000/69/EC uses the word "uncertainty" and "fixed measurements" instead of "accuracy" and "continuous measurement" (used in Directive 1999/30/EC, on which the original Regulations are based). The distinction in the amending Regulations for Directive 2000/69/EC reflects this.
10. A small number of minor drafting errors were also pointed out.
    • These have been amended where appropriate.

Other Comments

11. The decision to harmonise the targets for the Air Quality Strategy with those for the Second Daughter Directive was welcomed.
12. The concern was raised that the Preliminary Assessment of benzene and carbon monoxide levels, in line with Article 5 of the Air Quality Framework Directive (1996/62/EC) and referred to in Paragraph 24 of the consultation paper, is not currently obtainable.
    • The assessment will shortly be published on the National Air Quality Archive.

DIRECTIVE 2002/3/EC - the Third Daughter Directive

Comments on the Regulations

13. Most respondents were content that the Regulations fully transposed the Directive. The concern was raised that provision for formulation of joint short-term action plans where transboundary pollution occurs, in accordance with Article 8.2 of the Directive, may not have been fully transposed.
    • This question is under consideration by departmental lawyers.
14. A number of minor drafting errors were also highlighted.
    • The Regulations will be amended as appropriate.
15. A minority of respondents favoured keeping the implementing Regulations for Directive 2000/69 separate. A number of respondents favoured the introduction of consolidated regulations.
    • Departmental lawyers will draft consolidated Regulations for Directives 1996/62, 1999/30, 2000/69 and 2002/3.

Other Comments

16. The need for further research into the effects of certain species of VOCs to ensure reduced ozone levels in the future was highlighted. The Environment Agency stated that further research should be carried out to identify sources and possible abatement techniques.
17. One respondent considered that it is unclear how emissions from anthropogenic and biogenic sources will be differentiated. The need for reduction programmes to be targeted on appropriate sources was emphasised.
18. It was pointed out that Annex VI lists VOCs "recommended for measurement", while Article 9(3) states that Member States "shall... supply data on concentrations of the ozone precursor substances listed in Annex VI". Two respondents felt that the measurement of total non-methane hydrocarbons was of limited value.
19. The view was expressed that objectives for ozone and other pollutants should be based on WHO guidelines, not EPAQS recommendations.
20. One respondent considered that the target value for vegetation was too high.