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

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

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

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

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

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

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