1. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Agenda
Thursday, August 30th
13:00 – 13:30 General issues
13:30 – 15:00 Groundwater Watch List concept & methodology paper, version 10.9
15:00 – 15:30 Coffee break
15:30 – 17:30 Results Column II and Column III assessments
17:30 – 18:00 Other open questions – way forward
19:30 Informal get together in the evening, dinner La brasserie Le Régalia
Friday, August 31st
08:30 -09:45 Substances for the List facilitating Annex I/II process and the Watch List – Metadata? – Data Management
10:00 – 10:30 Ongoing Work (GeoWRA, Norman etc.)
10:30 – 11:00 Coffee break
11:00 – 13:00 Substances for next studies, time table, Vienna

2. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
13:30 – 13:45 Welcome address and general issues (Elisa Vargas, Benjamin Lopez)
13:45 – 15:00 Groundwater Watch List Concept Paper
Wrap-up of progress made since last meeting in Brussels (Rüdiger Wolter/Ronald Kozel)
Figure 3.1 “Structure of the Groundwater  Watch List (GWWL) process” was modified
3.5 Procedure to select substances for the Groundwater Watch List process (new)
3.6 Procedure to select substances for the List facilitating Annex I and II (new)
3.7 Deselection of substances from the Groundwater Watch List process (new)
Several modifications in Chapters 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 that refer to Chapters 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7
The general timeline of GWWL process was integrated

3. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Outcomes from Bern meeting concerning GWWL
In Bern draft 10.8 of the Watch List Concept was presented and discussed.
MS were asked to comment the Concept until the 11th May 2018
There were no comments from MS or other organisations
Draft 10.8 was accepted by MS
Overview about the actual state of the GWWL concept & methodology paper (version 10.9)
Comments from Ralf Eppinger and CONCAWE could not taken into account preparing Draft After the Bern-meeting these comments were addressed and integrated in Draft 10.9.
Additional remarks and reply - Feedbacks from the group of volunteers
Open Questions / discussion
15:00 – 15:30 Break

4. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
15:30 – 18:00 Groundwater Watch List Concept Paper - Continued
Results of Column II and Column III assessment (Benjamin Lopez).
Detailed discussion of all steps of the GWWL process (based on a real pilot data set)
Discussion of open questions of the concept paper text
Way forward
19:30 Common Dinner

5. Groundwater Watch List process - some adjustments -

6. Groundwater Watch List process (concept)
All substances, except annex I or II substances
Prioritisation based on existing monitoring data (column I)
Criteria: presence in GW
Output: ranked list I
Prioritisation based on exposure (column II)
Criteria: theoretical groundwater leaching potential and extent of potential environmental exposure
Output: ranked list II
All substances found
(at least 1 country and 5 sites)
All substances ranked according to leaching potential
Substances with significant groundwater leaching potential
Prioritisation based on hazard (column III)
Criteria: toxicological or ecotoxicological hazard
Output: ranked list III
GWWL
Monitoring
Bypass (expert judgement)
No relevant findings
 deselection NO
Sufficient monitoring data available?
YES
Limited number (e.g. top 30)
Groundwater Watch List
GWWL
List facilitating the Annex I + II process

7. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Test of the general procedure
Starting universe = All individual or group (chemical or use family) of substances
Procedure = Annexes I, II, III of the Groundwater Watch List Concept & Methodology – Draft Version 10.9
Column I: substances monitored in GW
Monitoring score = [ (Score N° PC) + (Score N° sites)] / 2
Column II: substances that have the theoretical potential to reach GW
GW exposure score = (Persistence score + Mobility score) / 2
Column III: hazard
Hazard score = [(“PBT / vPvB” score) + (“CMR” score) + (“ED” score)] / number of fulfilled “criteria”

8. Groundwater Watch List process (concept)
All substances, except annex I or II substances
Clarification:
All substances  Selection (to keep it managable) of
substance groups (e.g. PFAS)
use groups (e.g. pharmaceuticals)
even single substances possible
under the lead of WGGW (open procedure):

9. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Test of the general procedure
Starting universe = All individual or group (chemical or use family) of substances
Procedure = Annexes I, II, III of the Groundwater Watch List Concept & Methodology – Draft Version 10.9
Column I: substances monitored in GW
Monitoring score = [ (Score N° PC) + (Score N° sites)] / 2
Column II: substances that have the theoretical potential to reach GW
GW exposure score = (Persistence score + Mobility score) / 2
Column III: hazard
Hazard score = [(“PBT / vPvB” score) + (“CMR” score) + (“ED” score)] / number of fulfilled “criteria”

10. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Global procedure test
Scoring Technical Issues
GW Leaching score
Calculation of the column I score: N° sites vs %age sites
Different solutions tested
Best solution would be
Non linear scoring for column I calculation (low findings weighted)
Mean [column I ; column II] scores

11. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Global procedure test
Scoring Technical Issues
GW leaching potential - Column I score calculation
Indicators
Sub-score
Monitoring score
A) Number of countries with concentrations > LOQ (Score N°PC)
(Values between 0 and 1)
no country = 0
1 country = 0.2
2 countries = 0.4
3 countries = 0.6
4 countries = 0.8
5 or more countries = 1
[ (Score N°PC) + (Score N° sites)] / 2
Value between 0 and 1
B) Number of sites with concentrations > LOQ (Score N° sites)
no site = 0
1 - 5 sites = 0.1
sites = 0.2
sites = 0.3
16 – 20 sites = 0.4
21 – 25 sites = 0.5
26 – 30 sites = 0.6
31 – 35 sites = 0.7
36 – 40 sites = 0.8
41 – 45 sites = 0.9
> 45 sites = 1

12. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Global procedure test
Scoring Technical Issues
GW leaching potential - Column I score calculation
Score A et B not discriminant and Score B biased by the number of sites monitored
Proposal: new intermediate score correponding to the %age of site with detected samples
B’ score between 0 & 1
0% 0
≤ 0,25% 0.1
≤ 0,5% 0.2
≤ 1% 0.3
≤ 2.5% 0.4
≤ 5% 0.5
≤ 10% 0.6
≤ 25% 0.7
≤ 50% 0.8
≤ 75% 0.9
≤ 100% 1
It is necessary to create critera for scoring that are
1) discriminant
2) not group specific

13. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Global procedure test
Scoring Technical Issues
Scenario 1: Column I = N° sites | Leaching Score = Mean (I ; II)
Carbamazepine ranked 7th

14. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Global procedure test
Scoring Technical Issues
Scenario 2: Column I = %age sites | Leaching Score = Mean (I ; II)
Carbamazepine ranked 4th

15. All substances ranked according to potential leaching
All substances, except annex I or II substances
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on existing monitoring data (column I)
Criteria: presence in GW
Output: ranked list I (scored)
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on exposure (column II)
Criteria: theoretical groundwater leaching potential and extent of potential environmental exposure
Output: ranked list II (scored)
All substances ranked according to monitoring data (proved leaching potential)
(at least 1 country and 5 sites)
All substances ranked according to potential leaching
Ranked list based on mean proved and potential groundwater leaching scores (column I and II)
New:
New list: Combination of 2 entire ranked lists
Mean score of column I and column II scores
Notes:
- If one score is missing, the existing score is kept
- Column I based on percentage of sites and not on number of sites

16. Groundwater Watch List process (concept)
All substances, except annex I or II substances
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on existing monitoring data (column I)
Criteria: presence in GW
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on exposure (column II)
Criteria: theoretical groundwater leaching potential and extent of potential environmental exposure
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on hazard (column III)
Criteria: toxicological or ecotoxicological hazard
List I: Substances ranked according to montoring data (scored)
List II: Substances ranked according to leaching potential (scored)
List III: Substances ranked according to hatzard (scored)
Ranked list based on mean proved or potential groundwater leaching scores (column I and II)
Note:
- All chemical or use groups are assessed regarding their hazard
New:
Column III parallel to columns I and II and not following (as not dependant)

17. Groundwater Watch List process (concept)
All substances, except annex I or II substances
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on existing monitoring data (column I)
Criteria: presence in GW
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on exposure (column II)
Criteria: theoretical groundwater leaching potential and extent of potential environmental exposure
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on hazard (column III)
Criteria: toxicological or ecotoxicological hazard
List I: Substances ranked according to montoring data (scored)
List II: Substances ranked according to leaching potential (scored)
List III: Substances ranked according to hatzard (scored)
Ranked list based on maximum proved or potential groundwater leaching scores (column I and II)
Ranked integrated list according to leaching and hazard potential
New:
Ranked integrated list according to leaching and hazard potential (combination of leaching score and hazard score)
Integrated score = Mean [GW Leaching score ; Hazard score]
Note: If Hazard score is lacking, Integrated score = Leaching score

18. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Global procedure test
Scoring Technical Issues
Scenario 4: Column I = %age sites | Leaching Score = Mean (I ; II)
Carbamazepine ranked 3rd

19. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
2- Poly and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – 51 substances studied
list of 51 PFAS scored regarding their GW leaching potential and hazard
Table: subset of 20 first PFAS integrated scores

20. How to deal with missing hazard data?
Substance will be marked
Integrated score = leaching score
No hazard assessment without leaching GWpotential information

21. Groundwater Watch List process (concept)
All substances, except annex I or II substances
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on existing monitoring data (column I)
Criteria: presence in GW
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on exposure (column II)
Criteria: theoretical groundwater leaching potential and extent of potential environmental exposure
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on hazard (column III)
Criteria: toxicological or ecotoxicological hazard
List I: Substances ranked according to montoring data (scored)
List II: Substances ranked according to leaching potential (scored)
List III: Substances ranked according to hatzard (scored)
Ranked list based on maximum proved or potential groundwater leaching scores (column I and II)
Ranked integrated list according to leaching and hazard potential
GWWL
Monitoring
Bypass (expert judgement)
No relevant findings
 deselection
Sufficient monitoring data available? NO
YES
Limited number (e.g. top 30)
Groundwater Watch List
GWWL
List facilitating the Annex I + II process

22. Groundwater Watch List process (concept)
All substances, except annex I or II substances
Prioritisation based on existing monitoring data (column I)
Criteria: presence in GW
Prioritisation based on exposure (column II)
Criteria: theoretical groundwater leaching potential and extent of potential environmental exposure
Prioritisation based on hazard (column III)
Criteria: toxicological or ecotoxicological hazard
New:
Bypass no more needed to select substances for GWWL
Limited number (e.g. 30):
Selection based on
- Ranked integrated list (if possible, choice of indicators representing relevant groups of substances achieving a broad coverage)
- Suggestion of the GWWL group to be adopted by the WGGW
List I: Substances ranked according to montoring data (scored)
List II: Substances ranked according to leaching potential (scored)
List III: Substances ranked according to hatzard (scored)
Ranked list based on maximum proved or potential groundwater leaching scores (column I and II)
Ranked integrated list according to leaching and hazard potential
GWWL
Monitoring
Bypass (expert judgement)
No relevant findings
 deselection
Sufficient monitoring data available? NO
YES
Limited number (e.g. top 30)
Groundwater Watch List
GWWL
List facilitating the Annex I + II process

23. Groundwater Watch List process (concept)
All substances, except annex I or II substances
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on existing monitoring data (column I)
Criteria: presence in GW
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on exposure (column II)
Criteria: theoretical groundwater leaching potential and extent of potential environmental exposure
Prioritisation for substance or use group based on hazard (column III)
Criteria: toxicological or ecotoxicological hazard
List I: Substances ranked according to montoring data (scored)
List II: Substances ranked according to leaching potential (scored)
List III: Substances ranked according to hatzard (scored)
Ranked list based on maximum proved or potential groundwater leaching scores (column I and II)
Ranked integrated list according to leaching and hazard potential
GWWL
Monitoring
No relevant findings
 deselection NO
Sufficient monitoring data available?
YES
Limited number (e.g. top 30)
Groundwater Watch List
GWWL
List facilitating the Annex I + II process

24. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
08:30 – 10:00 Watch list process (Substances on Watch List and List facilitating Annex I/II)
Selection of substances for the List facilitating Annex I/II
Selection of substances for the Watch List
Availability of data – how to deal with missing data?
Collection of metadata – which data are needed? (Targeted request on pathways and???)
Discussion about possible solutions for data management and data assessment (Norman etc.)

25. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Selection of substances for the List facilitating Annex I/II
Output
integrated ranked list
No relevant number of findings
 deselection NO
Sufficient monitoring data available?
YES
Groundwater Watch List
GWWL
List facilitating the Annex I + II process
Sufficient monitoring data?:
Quantified in 4 or more MS and found at more than 10 sites in each of the countries and highly ranked in column III
Yes: List facilitating Annex I + II process
No: Groundwater watch list – GWWL monitoring

26. Detected but not quantified*
PFC/PFAS-Substances that could go to the “List facilitating Annex I/II process”
No of MS/AC
Substance Name
Acronym
Total number of sites
Detected but not quantified*
No of findings
MS/AC with findings
List Facilitating* 10
Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PFOA
5736 38
1549
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
PFOS
6278 55
1430 9
Perfluorohexanoic Acid
PFHxA
4662
1175 8
Perfluorohexane Sulfonate
PFHxS
2328
124
873 7
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid
PFHpA
4224 37
817
Perfluoropentanoic Acid
PFPeA
2452 19
701 6
Perfluorobutane Sulfonate
PFBS
2209 93
577 5
Perfluorobutanoic Acid
PFBA
1189
552 4
Perfluorononanoic Acid
PFNA
3752 2
195
Perfluorodecanoic Acid
PFDA
2945 1
173 3
Perfluoroheptane Sulfonate
PFHpS
787 77
Perfluorododecanoic Acid
PFDoA
2830 62
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid
PFUnA
2711 42
1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid
H4-PFOS (6:2 FTS)
518 0  31
1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorodecanesulfonic Acid
H4-PFDeS (8:2 FTS)
242  0 24
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide
PFOSA
1715 22
10 substances were found in 4 or more MS/AC at 10 or more sites and thus could go to the „List facilitating Annex I/II process“
Note: Substances without hazard data will be marked
*No of MS where the substance was found at more than 10 sites

27. List facilitating Annex I/II
Pharmaceuticals that could go to the “List facilitating Annex I/II process”
Substance
No. of MS
Total number of sites
>LOQ
MS/PC with findings
List facilitating Annex I/II
Carbamazepine 12
3692
445 Y
caffeine 2
490
252 N
Paracetamol (Acetominophen) 9
1036
248 3
Sulfamethoxazole
2153
105
Diatrizoic Acid 5
1394 66 ?
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) 1 61
Metformin
787 56
Tramadol
675 54
Ibuprofen
1865 49 6
Clofibric acid 7
2294 46 4
Phenazone
1477 40
Iopamidol
1462 37
Diclofenac 10
3060 34
Primidon
628 31
Oxazepam
525 29
Crotamiton 27
Pentobarbital 26
Erythromycin 8
1255 25
Sotalol
1479
Isoquinoline
492 22
Gabapentin
167 19
Sulfadimidine
1314

28. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Selection of substances for the Watch List
Output:
integrated ranked list
Limited number (e.g. 30)
Watch List is a limited list of substances (e.g. 30). The list should be complemented by substances representing groups of substances with lower score, but revealing a pollution risk - in case the group would not be represented by using the score (e.g. non relevant metabolites).
Groundwater Watch List
GWWL
Sufficient monitoring data available? NO
Monitoring
YES
Criteria:
Ranked in column III but found in less than 4 MS/AC and/or at less than 10 sites in each MS/AC

29. Selection of substances for the Groundwater Watch List
Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
Selection of substances for the Groundwater Watch List
Example with data from the PFC pilot study:
Results of Column III assessment is needed – data not jet available.
Column I:
52 substances in the questionnaire -
28 substances were monitored and 23 found in GW.
From these 23 substances 10 substances could go to the “List facilitating Annex I/II process”.
Thus 13 substances were already found in GW but there are no sufficient data available (potential candidates for the Watch List).
Column II:
52 substances in the questionnaire -
11 have a high or medium score in Column II (1-0.5) but no monitoring data and also could go to the Watch List (potential candidates for the Watch List).

30. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
08:30 – 10:00 Watch list process (continued)
Availability of data – how to deal with missing data?
Collection of metadata – which data are needed? (Targeted request on pathways and???)
Discussion about possible solutions for data management and data assessment (Norman etc.)
10:00 – 10:30 Watch list process - Continued
Exchange about actually ongoing work on emerging contaminants in other projects (GeoERA, Surface Water Watch Lust, Norman etc.) (Elisa Vargas, Benjamin Lopez)
10:30 – 11:00 Break

31. Groundwater Watch List Meeting - Group of Volunteers –
30th – 31st August 2018 – Paris - Room: 1515 – 15th floor
11:00 – 13:00 Next steps
Exchange about ideas for substance groups for the next studies (input from everybody requested!)
Time table for additional data request
Presentation at Vienna meeting
ERL paper (Dan Lapworth)
Time buffer
13:00 End of the meeting

33. PPs New scheme test
Monitoring X Hazard ranking
Leaching potential X Hazard ranking

34. PPs Comparisom Integrated score ranking and New scheme ranking

35. PPs Comparisom Integrated score ranking and New scheme ranking