1. Results of breakout group
Hazardous substances
Results of breakout group

2. Scope of discussion
Workshop questions addressed for criterion 1 (contaminant concentrations)
Criterion 2: brief discussion but not answering the questions. It is assumed that C2 will be mainly assessed at national level
Significant pollution event (C3 and C4): main discussion (1) how to define “significant”, (2) how to present the criteria, (3) informing the assessment under D1, and (4) starting event monitoring (including e.g. for criterion C1 where appropriate)

3. 1. Are the assessment process and the degree of integration for the descriptor agreeable?
Level 2 integration, ie from indicators to criteria: No agreement on integration, but two alternatives (which can be combined):
OOAO
Presentation of combined assessment results, eg ratio of substances below and above threshold values
Level 3 integration, ie from GES criteria to D8. No integration needed. If integration needed at D8 then both should be in good status (OOAO). Unclear how secondary criterion D8C2 should be treated? Equal weight to D8C1?

4. D8C1 – Contaminant concentrations
Opinion 1
Descriptor 8 3
No integration
D8C1 – Contaminant concentrations
D8C2 –
Effect on biota
Both criteria need to be in good status for D8 to be in good status
GES Criteria 2
OOAO
Integration Level
Ind1
e.g. PAHs
Ind2
Ind3
Ind4
Ind5
Ind6
Ind7
Ind8
Ind9
Indicators 1
Other methods than OOAO more appropriate
Elements
Measurements of individual chemical congeners, at different sample stations, at different times, and potentially in different matrices (e.g. sediment, water, biota)

5. D8C1 – Contaminant concentrations
Opinion 2
Descriptor 8 3
No integration
D8C1 – Contaminant concentrations
D8C2 –
Effect on biota
Both criteria need to be in good status for D8 to be in good status
GES Criteria 2
Integration Level
No integration
Ind1
e.g. PAHs
Ind2
Ind3
Ind4
Ind5
Ind6
Ind7
Ind8
Ind9
Indicators 1
Other methods than OOAO more appropriate
Elements
Measurements of individual chemical congeners, at different sample stations, at different times, and potentially in different matrices (e.g. sediment, water, biota)

6. HELCOM: no, but able to support MS OSPAR has no integration
2. Are the integration methods appropriate, taking into account consistency a. with other EU legislation (WFD) and b. any regional assessment frameworks?
WFD: Yes
RSCs
HELCOM: no, but able to support MS
OSPAR has no integration
Black Sea and BARCON: no integration?

7. 3. What integration rules, if any, should apply in cases, in which information is missing for one or more indicators (forming a judgement on one criterion) or for one or more criteria?
Not discussed.
In WFD guidance if a substance is selected for assessment but not monitored, then status for that substance is assumed not good

8. 4. Are the assessment scales appropriate
4. Are the assessment scales appropriate? Can assessments across all elements and criteria for a Descriptor (e.g. for all contaminants under D8C1, for all species in a species group for D1) be done using the same assessment areas? Are there any additional scaling issues that need to be addressed in the guidance (e.g. where different scales are used for different elements and criteria with a Descriptor)?
Describing the issue:
Within WFD waterbodies (1 nm): integrate WFD assessment (chemical status + substances measured for ecological status) with MSFD substances
Overlap between WFD 12 nm and MSFD area: selection of additional MSFD elements (substance in relation to matrix) based on an analysis of what needs to be monitored where, depending on the sources and the contamination gradients.
Areas beyond 12 nm: selection of elements from WFD priority substances and additional MSFD substances based on risk-based approach. There are different approaches of MS how they intend to assess the substance (e.g. through offshore monitoring, modelling or using WFD results from within 12 nm).
Unclear if for the offshore area the WFD result has to be displayed for the 12nm in order to be consistent with WFD or whether it could be integrated within a larger (sub)regional (subasin) assessment scale for presentation purposes.

9. Potential proposal: two assessment scales
4. Are the assessment scales appropriate? Can assessments across all elements and criteria for a Descriptor (e.g. for all contaminants under D8C1, for all species in a species group for D1) be done using the same assessment areas? Are there any additional scaling issues that need to be addressed in the guidance (e.g. where different scales are used for different elements and criteria with a Descriptor)?
Potential proposal: two assessment scales
WFD water bodies (national approach, in many cases 1 nm)
Beyond WDF water bodies: subdivisions of the (sub)region, divided by where needed by national boundaries

10. 5. What is the recommended approach for linking additional national indicators to regional assessments?
One proposal for displaying local contamination (eg seeping mines) is hotspot map;
General: locally limited contamination should not be extrapolated to the larger assessment scale, since measures are also local.

11. 6. What is the recommended option for a high level presentation of the assessment output?
Criterion 1: contaminant concentrations
Presentation of indicator assessment results for instance by ratio: % or number of substances outside or inside of threshold values.
Identify which of these substances outside of threshold values are legacy/ubiquitous contaminants.
Distance to threshold values, taking into consideration spatial aspects to show the severity, geographic extent of the problem, and to show progress made
Trend (also by when threshold values are assumed to be met)