Review of the list of priority substances (Decision 2455/2001/EC)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Health and Safety Executive Ecotoxicology Annex II and III data requirements Mark Clook Chemicals Regulation Directorate Health and Safety Executive UK.
Advertisements

Framework for the Ecological Assessment of Impacted Sediments at Mining Sites in Region 7 By Jason Gunter (R7 Life Scientist) and.
CE Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science Readings for This Class: O hio N orthern U niversity Introduction Chemistry, Microbiology.
Chemistry, Environmental Fate and Transport, Production and Uses Charge Question 2-1: Please comment on whether the information is used appropriately in.
PROTECTFP PROTECT: First Proposed Levels for Environmental Protection against Radioactive Substances Definitions, Derivation Methods to Determine.
Module 8: Risk Assessment. 2 Module Objectives  Define the purpose of Superfund risk assessment  Define the four components of the human health risk.
Risk Assessment.
“to provide and apply an integrated approach of addressing scientific, managerial and societal issues surrounding environmental effects of ionising.
PROTECTFP Numerical Benchmarks for protecting biota against radiation in the environment Methodology to derive benchmarks, selected methods used.
Introduction to the ERICA Tool Radiation Protection of the Environment (Environment Agency Course, July 2015)
Charge Question 1-1: Please comment on whether the assessment provides a clear and logical summary of EPA’s approach and analysis. Please provide specific.
Randall Wentsel, Ph.D. 7 September, Background  Problems  PBT process is based on principles developed for organic substances that do not apply.
Food Advisory Committee Meeting December 16 and 17, 2014 Questions to the Committee Suzanne C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, DABT Senior Advisory for Toxicology Center.
Nadim Ahmad, OECD Presented by Peter van de Ven, OECD
(IAQ). What is Risk Assessment? Risk assessment: provides information on the health risk Characterizes the potential adverse health effects of human exposures.
PROTECTFP Derivation of Environmental Radiological Protection Benchmarks an overview
Charge Question 5-1 Comment Summary for HHCB Peer Review Panel Meeting January 9, 2014.
“The Dose makes the Poison”
Environmental Processes Partitioning of pollutants 3.iii Sorption in living media (bioavailability)
Charge Question 4-1: Please comment on the ecotoxicity studies selected to represent the most sensitive species in each of the risk scenarios (acute aquatic,
25 June 2009, London Impact significance in air quality assessment Application of EPUK criteria to road schemes?
Figure 2. Decrease in K and NO 3 over time in (a) AN1, (b) AN2, (c) CA2. Best fit determined by moving average. Potential for using anaerobic settling.
Recommendation 2001/331/EC: Review and relation to sectoral inspection requirements Miroslav Angelov European Commission DG Environment, Unit A 1 Enforcement,
CALIFORNIA proposed SAFER CONSUMER PRODUCT REGULATIONS Marjorie MartzEmerson October 24, 2012.
WP4. Assessment of environmental impacts and resulting externalities from multi-media (air/water/soil) impact pathways A. Rabl, T. Bachmann, R. Torfs -
Partitioning and Bioavailability Assessment for Sediments from South Wilmington Wetlands Huan Xia and Upal Ghosh Department of Chemical, Biochemical,
Richard Moules A Look into the Future for Contaminated Land.
Risk Assessment.
REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED LAND IN SOUTH AFRICA Part 8 of the Waste Act Ms Mishelle Govender Chemicals and Waste Management.
ECHA activities relating to Nanomaterials
Technical Support for the Impact Assessment of the Review of Priority Substances under Directive 2000/60/EC Updated Project Method for WG/E Brussels 22/10/10.
Chapter 15.3 Risk Assessment 2002 WHO report: “Focusing on risks to health is the key to preventing disease and injury.” risk assessment—process of evaluating.
Criteria for Inherently toxic (iT) in CEPA, UNEP Proposed iT criteria for non-human organisms –aquatic acute effects levels of < 1 mg/L –above 1 mg/L.
RISK DUE TO AIR POLLUTANTS
California Sediment Quality Advisory Committee Meeting SWRCB Program to Develop Sediment Quality Objectives for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.
John Batty DEFRA UK Bratislava November Legal Background For any given surface water body, applying the MAC-EQS means that the measured concentration.
Selenium Aquatic Life Criteria and Implementation ORSANCO Technical Committee Meeting October 21, 2009 Holly Green, USEPA Office of Science and Technology.
International Office for Water Prioritisation of substances under the WFD: Compilation of the comments WG E (4), Brussels, 15-16/10/2008.
International Office for Water Alice James - WG E (6), Brussels, 6 July 2009 International Office for Water Alice James - WG E (6), Brussels, 6 July 2009.
Volker J. Soballa Evonik Degussa GmbH Essen, Germany
Risk CHARACTERIZATION
OBJECTIVES Understanding what food chemicals are?
Lecture 4: Risk Analysis
Communication: Safety Summary
INTERNAL AUDIT REPORTS
W. Tyler Mehler PhD Student Research Summit
REPORT WRITING REFERENCE : Pinner, D. & Pinner, D. (2003) Communication Skills, 4th ed. Pearson Longman, New Zealand, pp. 147 – 162.
The NICE Citizens Council and the role of social value judgements
REPORT WRITING REFERENCE : Pinner, D. & Pinner, D. (2003) Communication Skills, 4th ed. Pearson Longman, New Zealand, pp 147 – 162.
IPPC second consultation 1 July to 30 September 2018
Bioaccumulation, PBTs, and SVHCs Day 2.
Alignment of Part 4B with ISAE 3000
11/20/2018 Study Types.
D8 and D9 REVIEW PROCESS April-June 2014: February 2015:
D 4 Food webs Process: two open workshops WGGES consultation
WG-E(1) Meeting, CCAB, Brussels, 06/03/2007
Art. 12 species population trends: feedback on discussion paper
Revision of the TGD-EQS - Update
Essential data for a complete dossier
Updating the Article 6 guide Outline of envisaged changes
- Priority Substances - Strategic Coordination Group
European Commission, DG Environment Air & Industrial Emissions Unit
Paul Whitehouse Environment Agency, UK
Paul Whitehouse Chair, EG-EQS
Role of Higher Tier Data in the Derivation of the Ni EQS
Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC
Pelagic community Quality Standards for Cyanides for EQS setting under WFD Udo Hommen.
Draft Mandate to request SCHER opinion on the TGD-EQS
EAF (9) Meeting, CCAB, Brussels, 02/10/2006
EU Water Framework Directive
Presentation transcript:

Review of the list of priority substances (Decision 2455/2001/EC) INERIS comments on the Draft TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR DERIVING EQS

Summary Organisational issues Terminology / Glossary issues with consequences Derivation of QSsec pois: Triggers Data assessment of toxicological data on vertebrates Lab to field extrapolation - Conversion of daily dose to food concentrations Endocrine disruption issue Derivation of QSsediment : partition coefficients default parameters equilibrium partitioning approach (EqP)

Organisational issues INERIS comments on organisation of the document : many comments are organisational and/or editorial and/or wording issues not addressed in this presentation when no other consequence than clarity of the document see written comments

Terminology / glossary issues with consequences Main comment on terminology referring to the whole document : EQS vs QS : EQS term used in many occasion when text refers to QS only Makes the text difficult to understand / interprete e.g. for determination the relationship between MAC and (E?)QS value (section 3.2.) INERIS suggestion: Change EQS term to QS for each occurrence not addressing the overall QS Relationship with MAC : replace AA-EQS by QSwater eco

Terminology / glossary issues with consequences Main comment on glossary referring to the whole document : There are many ≠ QSsubscript through the document INERIS suggestion: Add all ≠ QSsubscript in the glossary Harmonisation and consistency needed through the whole document

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Triggers Comment referring to section 2.4.1.4. : Trigger values for QSbiota sec pois : 2 different approaches for organics and metals organics : no bioaccumulation evidence -> no need for an assessment for metals (lines 580-583) : “A lack of biomagnification should not be interpreted as lack of exposure or no concern for trophic transfer. Even in the absence of biomagnification, aquatic organisms can bioaccumulate relatively large amounts of metals and this can become a significant source of dietary metal to their predators (U.S. EPA 2007; Reinfelder et al. 1998)”.

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Triggers INERIS Comment (section 2.4.1.4.) : same risk happen for very toxic organic compounds for which very low concentrations in food can lead to significant toxicity in mammals. EQS driven by QSbiota sec pois even for substances with log KOW<3 cases observed in several occurrence for derivation of QS

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Triggers Incidence on EQS determination : Significant some QS can be underestimated

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Data assessment of toxicological data on vertebrates INERIS comment referring to section 2.4.1.5. : no clear recommendation for the selection of the data for assessment of secondary poisoning e.g. are reproduction data preferred to any other systemic effects not likely to have an impact on the population but occurring at lower concentrations ? INERIS Suggestion : more detailed recommendation should be given on this issue an ecotoxicologist judgment is necessary for the definition of the environmental protection goal of secondary poisoning

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Lab to field extrapolation – Conversion factor INERIS comment referring to section 4.4.2 : Lines 3306 – 3308 : “Table 4-1 presents a guide with a standard set of factors that can be used to promote internal consistency when converting concentrations from dose into diet for mammals. The guide should be used only in the absence of more specific data from the study itself or other sources.” Lines 3316 – 3318 : “In cases where only the food concentration is available, and information is not available to enable a calculation of the dose, the assessment factors should be increased by a factor of 3 (i.e. as in the TGD)”.

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Conversion of daily dose to food concentrations INERIS comment referring to section 4.4.2 : Contradictory : dose expressed as food concentration ? Based on the work done for the time being : in some cases, NOAEL used for secondary poisoning may have been corrected to a systemic dose BUT back calculations from this systemic dose to concentration in food would add uncertainties

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Lab to field extrapolation INERIS comment referring to section 4.4.2 : Lab to field extrapolation (efficiency absorption) : inconsistency between REACH guidance and TG EQS guidance : REACH guidance : extrapolation factor taken into account in the step of PNEC derivation (Assessment Factor) TG EQS guidance : extrapolation factor taken into account in the step of conversion from daily dose to food concentration (Conversion Factor)

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Lab to field extrapolation – Conversion factor INERIS suggestion: Recommendations needed: where to include the lab to field extrapolation factor ? which value is preferred : dose expressed as food concentration ?

Derivation of QSbiota sec pois Conversion of daily dose to food concentrations Incidence on EQS determination : Significant e.g. heptachlor, parathion

Endocrine disruption issue INERIS comment referring to section 2.8.2. and 3.4.2.1.1. : Encouragement in the document for a higher AF when potential for/relevant evidence for endocrine disruption BUT no detailed recommendations on : the values of these AF if deemed relevant for wildlife and/or human health ? if deemed relevant for all ecotoxicological data (aquatic only or also secondary poisoning?) if deemed relevant for derivation of MAC values ? If not, important precision

Endocrine disruption issue INERIS Suggestion : tricky issue need for an expert consultation for the time being, at least INERIS suggests to add the following sentence : “This factor should be at least of - for recognised ED, of - for suspected ED. No further assessment is needed for secondary poisoning and human health assessment since it is considered that these effects have already been captured by the toxicological assessment.”

Endocrine disruption issue Incidence on EQS determination : Significant Affects quite many substances and can lower EQS by a factor of -

Derivation of QSsediment Partition coefficients INERIS comment referring to section 2.6.1.1. : “Partition coefficients are needed to conduct transformation calculations (e.g. from mass/volume [mg/L] to mass/mass [mg/kg]). Those coefficients (K) are, for instance: K octanol-water (KOW), K suspended particulate matter – water (Ksusp-water), K sediment-water (Ksed-water), K organic carbon – water (KOC)”. Ksusp-water and Ksed-water introduced here, but not clear how they have to be used, in particular for derivation of standard for sediment INERIS Suggestion : Clarify whether these coefficients should be used and if so, how, especially if needed for derivation of a QSsediment

Derivation of QSsediment Partition coefficients INERIS comment referring to section 2.6.1.2. : Use of benthic data for water column determination. for some specific substances, data from sediment dwelling organisms (e.g. Chironomus) used for determination of QSwater (cases where insects are more sensible than crustaceans, e.g. some insecticides) INERIS Suggestion : Add clarification in the text whether: it is possible to use sediment dwelling organisms data for derivation of QSwater (back calculation from sediment to water) and eventually use them for QSsediment derivation (INERIS position) OR back calculation from sediment to water not possible

Derivation of QSsediment Default parameters INERIS comment referring to section 5 : Ecotoxicity testing section: Line 2926 : (E)QS is to be expressed in dry weight Line 2927: “a standard sediment has a default OC value of 5%” Equilibrium partitioning section: Absence of provision sediment parameters have to be used rather than SPM ?

Derivation of QSsediment Equilibrium Partitioning method INERIS comment referring to section 5 : Direct reference to Di Toro et al. (1991) Removal of EU TGD equation Equation given as “Sediment threshold_OC” but no further guidance is provided on how to move : from this result to “total sediment” from “wet weight” to “dry weight”

Derivation of QSsediment INERIS Suggestion : Clarification needed on the purpose of EqP application: Usual TGD calculations using SPM parameters ? Usual TGD calculations using SED parameters ? Other calculations ? Add a worked example in the guidance even if the EqP approach is not recommended by CSTEE.

Derivation of QSsediment Incidence on EQS determination : Significant QSsediment can not be derived for any substance at this step

Thank you for your attention