DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Biotechnology
ENV.D.1 - Water
12 October 2009
Expert Group on Review of WFD Priority Substances List (EG-R)
Sub-group of the Working Group E on Priority Substances
DG Environment, 21-22 September 2009
Minutes
Participants: Jorge Rodriguez Romero (JRR), Madalina DaviD (MaD), Karola Grodzki (KG), Steven EISENREICH (SE), Ana Paya Perez (APP), Klaus Daginnus(KD), Sandrine ANDRES (SA), Alice JAMES (AJ), Benoît FRIBOURG-BLANC (BFB), John BATTY (JB), Helen WILKINSON (HW), Raphaël DEMOULIERE (RD), Marc BABUT (MB), Mélissa DALLET (MeD), Petra RINGELTAUBE (PR), Mario CARERE (MC), Theodora TEN HULSCHER (DH), Eric VERBRUGGEN (EV), Helene LAGER (HL), Henning CLAUSEN (HC), Ismene JAEGER (IJ), Nadia HAIAMA (NH), Ann DIERCKX (AD), Andre LECLOUX (AL), Katrien DELBEKE (KaD), Frank VAN ASSCHE (FvA), Klaas DEN HAAN (KdH), Mick HAMER - Syngenta (MH), Dolf VAN WIJK - Euro Chlor (DvW).
First day of the meeting: 21 September 2009
1. Welcome and adoption of the Agenda
Ana Paya Perez (APP) and John Batty (JB) welcomed the participants and invited them to introduce themselves in a round table (see List of participants attached in Annex 2).
APP introduced the main objectives of the meeting. 1st day of the meeting was planned to be devoted to the review of the WFD priority substances list including discussion on the overall prioritisation process, the mandate of the Expert Group on Review (EG-R), the template with data sheet for candidate substances, the results of modelling-based prioritisation, screening criteria to be used to score Annex 1 substances and the next steps of the review.
JB pointed out that meeting should consider prioritisation at a strategical level and not go into details and therefore the focus for these days is to find a robust system on prioritisation and to agree on the criteria for de-selection to be used for long-term purpose.
APP continued with the topics intended to be addressed on the 2nd day of the meeting as the Draft Technical Guidance Document on EQS derivation (TGD-EQS), results of testing phase of the guidelines and how/if these are going to be used to amend the methodology proposed, next steps to finalise the TGD-EQS and what to be presented to the next WG E.
As regards the Draft Agenda (attached in Annex 1), APP reminded to the members that this was distributed before the meeting and she ask for comments and possible points to be added.
Henning Clausen (HC) suggested adding, if possible under agenda AOB, the link between all databases on existing EQSs established at national level by different Member States.
Theodora Ten Hulscher (DH) asked for clarifications on agenda item 2 and 3 having in view that this looked, in her opinion, a repetition of a single statement.
JorgeRodriguez Romero (JRR) clarified that point 2 is an overview of main requirements under different pieces of legislations that need to be considered during prioritisation process and then under point 3, the EG will discuss and agree the work programme, responsibilities and timetable.
DH asked whether the time schedule should not be discussed first?
JRR responded that this was planned to be addressed at the end of today day, but could be moved if the EG-R will agree.
No further comments were received and APP concluded that the Agenda was adopted with one addition to the Agenda under item AOB as suggested by Denmark and possible discussion on timetable earlier than initially foreseen.
2. Presentation of the document WGE(6)-09/03 on overall prioritisation process
JRR presented the content and purpose of the document WGE(6)-09/03 (see slides and document on CIRCA).
On the purpose, JRR introduced the possible elements to be considered for the review of priority substances purpose and the principles of prioritisation as derived from Article 16(2) of the WFD identifying also other possible sources of substances. JRR emphasized that these sources aimed at possible covering of as many as possible substances despite of the fact that at end some overlaps may occur. JRR stressed that the scope of collection of all available information was to establish a list of possible candidate for the list of priority substances (Annex 1 of the document WGE(6)-09/03) to be review and decided as final list by the EG-R. At the end of his presentation JRR presented a tentative timetable for the finalisation of the review. JRR concluded that the outcomes of this review are fundamental for the future Commission’s proposal. JRR indicated that the discussions are likely to focus for the first meeting on general consideration and not on specific substances.
APP invited any comments or questions from the floor.
Andre Lecloux (AL) asked why Annex III substances are added in Annex 1 as long these are already included on the list of universe of chemicals for modelling-based prioritisation.
KlausDaginnus (KD) pointed out that the scope of Annex 1 is to integrate all information available, including the results from monitoring modelling approach. JRR said that the Commission has a specific mandate to review Annex III substances and therefore they appear in Annex I list. The final report on prioritisation should contain justification on the reasons these substances have or have not been prioritised.
Raphaël Demouliere (RD) commented that proceeding in this way, substances would be revised/included twice in the process of prioritisation. APP replied that the strategy of prioritisation includes all the regulatory legislations adopted at European level and/or under relevant international agreements. Also, APP mentioned that the mandate of EG-R is to discuss the potential inclusion or non-inclusion of some substances on the list of priority substances. JB underlined that Annex 2 of document WGE(6)-09/03 includes other sources (as tiers) in addition to the requirements of Article 16 of the WFD (the last two tiers on top left) and the role of the EG-R is to bring into discussions all the available information. Eric Verbruggen (EV) agreed, in principle, with what was previously said, but he points out that the procedure applied under the risk assessment on existing substances registered (ESR) is not the same as, for instance, the one applied for the risk assessment on pesticideand this should be taken into account as the methodology used for risk assessment of pesticides may not be appropriate for the WFD prioritisation.
Nadia Haiama (NH) asked where will be discussed the control measures?
JRR replied that this is not a task of the EG-R for the moment. Later on in the processthe WG E on Priority substances will have to decide how discussion on control measures is taken forward.
AL asked how the potential endocrine disrupting effect will be further considered, taking into consideration the Weybridge definition that to be classified as an endocrine disruptor, an adverse effect needs to be shown.
DH stated that it cannot be decided how to regulate all the substances and all the compartments where these substances could be analysed. JB agreed with DH and moreover these uncertainties should be pointed out.
APP suggested moving further to the next agenda point to get more clarity on the whole process to be applied.
3. Mandate of the Expert Group on Review
JRR gave a presentation on the mandate of EG-R and the proposed working methods (see slides on CIRCA). JRR completed the presentation with some questions to be responded by the EG-R.
APP invited any comments or questions from the floor as well as to respond to the questions raised. APP continued that probably is too early to reply to these questions and therefore she suggested discussing first the proposed steps. JRR stressed that the point to be addressed now is on how to move further the work developed.
Ismene JAEGER (IJ) requested some clarification on the next steps.
EV commented that there are some errors on the list in the Annex 1 that have to be carefully checked (e.g. on PBT).
RD did not agreed with these comments as long as we discussed already during May Workshop on prioritisation that a comparison between the results of modelling approach and monitoring approach is needed.
AL and Ann DIERCKX (AD) recalled that new substances are going be included in Annex 1 and the way to go forward is not clear. For example, is it planned to run again the two prioritisationprocesses for these new substances or will they be added directly on the candidate list of substances?
DH stressed that the merging the lists is required as well the establishment of de-selection criteria. JRR agreed with DH, but the idea on how to combine the information coming from different lists remains an open issue to be discussed by the EG-R.
JB suggested that now is the time to agree on the deadline for addition of new substances. Once agreed, these substances will be part of waiting list that will be used for the next review. JB concluded that this is a pragmatic solution and it is essential that this is clearly understood. NH supports JB view, the list with substances not very highly or highly ranked should be made publicly available.
Helen WILKINSON (HW) pointed out that will be useful to know which substances are ranked through different methodologies and the scores attributed to them.
RD proposed to change the cross from the column related to the results of monitoring-based ranking with scores.
DH pointed out that it can happen to have different scores for the 2 methodologies and consequently it is important to find a solution to cope with this. JRR responded that this is the task of EG-R, so the issue has to be sorted out by this group.
JRR he underlined that is not possible to map everything out and that a case by case analysis of substances is necessary.
EV reiterated that is fundamentally to establish how the two lists will be merged and thus we have to weight the conclusions coming from the 2 methodologies.
Klaas den Haan (KdH) recalled that monitoring results are supposed to be used for modelling results checking. JB agreed in principle with KdH, but he also stressed that we must be careful because there is a time lapse between the two processes and so, we have to find a mechanism on how to merge these different strains.
EV said that if you have a substance ranked high it is needed to check related monitoring data. KdH continued that in this respect monitoring data should not be neglected. EV agreed, but at the end you have to decide how to weight the outcomes of the two approaches.
JRR concluded that a new point could be added to the proposed steps on discussion and agreement of the weight of different results.
NH asked about the timeline for the proposed step. JRR responded that a tentative timetable was given in document WGE(6)-09/03, but should be re-discussed and detailed at the end of the day.
APP concluded that the EG-R agreed on the approach for the proposed steps.
- Finalise modelling-based approach and fill in the information in list of candidate substances
→ Agenda point 6
- Agree screening criteria to shrink the list from ~300 to a manageable number (30-50?)
→ Agenda point 5
- Prepare dossiers for all substances remaining on the candidate list, to be used as a basis for substance specific discussions
→ Agenda point 4
- Finalise EQS derivation for those substances selected
Each step to be overlooked by WGE
DH commented that Members States do not have the necessary resources to work on the preparation of the dossiers for different substances. JRR responded that Member States worked already on this issue and available information could be provided if exists. HC agreed in principle with JRR, but Member States will be in a better position to make any statements when the list of candidate substances will be completed.
AL asked whether there is planned to involve also the stakeholders in the preparation of a dossier for a specific substances?
JB stressed that it may be sensible to review dossiers provided by the Member States and for this purpose EG-R could contribute. However, JB emphasised that the standard setting process could also be an expensive one. Anyway, the costs could be reduced if the synergy with previous work is taking into account.
JRR concluded that the list is going to be completed soon and therefore Member States would be able to provide information on substances that they worked on and to share the work with other Member States as well as with interested stakeholders.
AD asked whether EQSs for existing priority substances and priority hazardous substances are going to be reviewed or re-visited. EV supported AD point of view saying that EG-R would be appropriate to review the EQSs for existing priority substances and priority hazardous substances. JRR responded that this issue is also planned to be done, but is not yet included in the EG-R mandate.
As regards the EQSs derivation for those substances selected, APP said that EG-R would analyse this issue on case by case basis.
On possible addition of new substances on the Annex 1 list, APP suggested addressing this with the WG E on priority substances, but anyway a strict deadline should be clearly settled.
In conclusion, APP said that EG-R agreed with the principles underlined in WGE(6)-09/03 document and proposed mandate and working methods for the group.
4. Review of the results of monitoring-based prioritisations
4.3. Proposals for testing of quality and representativeness of monitoring data and for presentation of results
Benoît FRIBOURG-BLANC (BFB) informed EG-R members about the website on priority substances database created for the purpose of this review as well as about the summary information available for each substance that could be directly downloaded as pdf documents (see slides on CIRCA). On the second part of his presentation, BFB presented a proposal for further testing of quality and representativeness of monitoring data. Also, some examples were used for better understanding of this proposal.
APP invited any comments or questions from the floor.
JRR took the floor giving more explanations on what was meant by these graphs. JRR continued that this is intended to complement the existing information on “a posteriori checks” that have been already provided in the Report on monitoring-based prioritisation. These types of graphs will offer a visual information (and therefore quicker to get it) on the weight of quantified values in relation with PEC1 and on number of values below the limit of determination that contribute to PEC2 as well as how these results relate with PNEC.
DH commented that 2 substances were given as examples for two different matrices and therefore is difficult to understand what the conclusion is. BFB responded that these are only some examples of the assessments that could be useful for the further work on the review of Annex 1 substances and the intention was to present these possibilities to the EG and to trigger the discussions on whether these help or not/need to be improved/supplemented, etc.
In addition to that, other queries were triggered by BFB presentation as follows:
- DH noticed that for instance limit of determination in the graph for PCB vary considerable.
- AL said that having in view the meaning of PEC1 and PEC2, it would be useful to have such both distributions on the same graph
- Petra Ringeltaube (PR): both are for water phase or water and sediment; could be the quality estimated by this way? What about coastal waters?
- AD asked whether the location of the stations identified based on these types of graphs could be mentioned? This information will help the quality checks.
- Mario Carere (MC) asked whether DL means determination limit or detection limit?
JB summarised that the huge dataset compiled from the EU collection exercise represented a massive step forward but that it was still not possible to confirm that these are all routine monitoring data or include other types of monitoring data. Anyway, the group should take full advantage of the available information. It is obviously that analytical quality is going to be improved but, for the time being, we have to take the most robust data that we have at this stage.
KD underlined that modelling information are going to support those coming from monitoring; for e.g. this substances is banned, so could be a historical pollution problem.
Katrien Delbeke (KaD) considers this information as very good. She asked whether either detection limits or quantification limits of measured values could be made available? She also proposed to have an indication of the departure of the quantified values in relation to the limit of determination.
BFB clarified that the meaning of limit of determination is what is explained in the INERIS report.
JRR concluded that the type of graph proposed is useful. Also, JRR noticed that two proposals were made: one is to develop an indicator of how far the quantified values are from the limit of determination. The second is to investigate the geographical representativeness of the quantified results. However, the second proposal could be sensitive for the Member States, so it could be decided at a later stage if is really needed.
APP concluded that EG-R members considered this proposal as being very useful. Further considerations/improvements are needed as suggested.