1. Identification and Prioritisation of Candidate Priority Substances under the Next Review
Changed 3rd to next
Dean Leverett
Graham Merrington
WG Chemicals October 2013

2. Progress and Next Steps
Scoping Report
Circulated August 2013
Outlined proposals for identification and prioritisation of substances
Designed to ensure transparency and allow MS and Stakeholder Groups to provide input to the process at the earliest stage
Comprehensive and constructive reviews received from a number of MS and Stakeholder Groups
Next Steps
Brief Q&A at this meeting
MS and Stakeholder Group comments and responses will be compiled into a separate document
Highlights opinions on each element of the proposed approaches
Allows MS and Stakeholder Groups to review all opinions in a holistic manner
Allows EC to provide responses to opinions (where relevant)
WG Chemicals October 2013

3. Progress and Next Steps
Opinion Document
To be circulated late October 2013
Further commenting opportunity during November 2013
Optimal approaches resolved taking account of opinions/suggestions and EC requirements
Revised Scoping Document
Based on outcomes of above
To be circulated December 2013
Other Steps
Some data gathering work can already commence
Prioritisation steps to follow based on revised document
WG Chemicals October 2013

4. Overview of MS & Stakeholder Comments
Review of existing PS and process for de-selection
Review of criteria that led to selection and de-selection of substances in last review, particularly modelling
Why were some apparently ‘high risk’ substances not ranked highly?
Why were some ranked highly only for it to become apparent that the data was not sufficient for prioritisation?
Re-evaluation of substance ‘prioritised’ but not taken forward in last review
Process designed to reduce repeated work, but.....
Clarity required on specific info/ evidence gaps to ensure resources can be focussed on only those substances with new data
Re-evaluation of substances from last review should also consider potential evidence against their high ranking
WG Chemicals October 2013

5. Overview of MS & Stakeholder Comments
Monitoring-based Ranking
Acceptance Criteria for Monitoring Data
No. of MS (1, 3, 4, a third?)
Other Criteria - No. of Sites, Measurements or PNEC Exceedences?
Only water monitoring data relevant for monitoring-based ranking
Low numbers of MS/ Sites/ Measurement for sediment & biota
Sediment & biota may indicate historical contamination
PEC calculation from monitoring data
90th P of Means
Mean of 90th P
Other?
Monitoring database must be transparent and subject to scrutiny from stakeholders
WG Chemicals October 2013

6. Overview of MS & Stakeholder Comments
Modelling-based Ranking
Degree of use of REACH data
Substance identification only or wider use?
How to deal with substances for which regulatory work is ongoing under other regimes (REACH, PPP, etc)
Exclude?
Include since Risk Assessments based on intended use and do not align with long-term objectives of WFD?
Pharmaceuticals
Included or addressed separately under Article 8c?
Transparency of modelling procedures using to rank substances in modelling-based ranking
WG Chemicals October 2013

7. Overview of MS & Stakeholder Comments
Relationship of Substance Prioritisation Process with Watch List Process?
Later stages of the process (preparation of dossiers onwards)
Does this also need firm and transparent procedures?
Agreed procedures must be adhered to throughout
WG Chemicals October 2013