1 / 32

Evaluation perspectives: Part I - Dossier Evaluation - Where are we so far?

Evaluation perspectives: Part I - Dossier Evaluation - Where are we so far?. ETUI annual seminar Worker Protection and Chemicals Andrew Phillips ECHA, Evaluation Directorate Friday 28 June 2013. Headline news. 3 June 2013 ECHA website. 2923 more chemicals registered

tbond
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation perspectives: Part I - Dossier Evaluation - Where are we so far?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation perspectives: Part I- Dossier Evaluation- Where are we so far? ETUI annual seminar Worker Protection and Chemicals Andrew Phillips ECHA, Evaluation Directorate Friday 28 June 2013

  2. Headline news 3 June 2013 ECHA website 2923 more chemicals registered 9084 new registrations 3215 companies

  3. Perspectives from Evaluation of Dossiers • Dossier & Substance Evaluation – the Process under REACH • Where are we so far • Testing Proposals • Compliance Check strategies • Substance Evaluation • Quality issues with dossiers and CSRs • ECHA’s strategy to improve the quality of registration dossiers – the CSA Programme and CSR Roadmap

  4. Dossier & Substance Evaluation A brief description of Evaluation Processes under REACH

  5. Facts and figures 2012 Report 2012 http://echa.europa.eu/documents

  6. Testing Proposals

  7. Testing proposals • REACH aim is to ensure tests address actual information needs and to avoid unnecessary testing on vertebrate animal • REACH dossiers need to pass Technical Completeness Check Rules • Registrants can choose options to address an endpoint • Provide a study • Provide a waiver • Provide a read across argument • Provide a Testing Proposal • Some intended, some not • Generally higher tier endpoints for high tonnage chemicals • Sub chronic endpoints: 90-day studies • Reproductive toxicity endpoints: two-generation studies, pre-natal developmental studies

  8. Testing proposals • Evaluation acts as scientific evaluator and secretariat before presentation to Member States Committee: • Appropriateness of the proposal • Most appropriate test, route of administration and species • Any specific requirements for testing • Acceptance (or otherwise) of read across • Proposes timeframe

  9. Testing proposals – the process • Phase-in substances – 1 year, Non phase-in 6 months • Third party consultation • Scientific evaluation – then internal processes to ensure consistency and develop policy lines • Draft Decision sent Registrant • Registrant options to comment and informally discuss Formal process with deadlines after referral to Member States • Member States Competent Authorities comments • Member States Committee discussions and agreement • Final Decision sent Registrant • Appeal Process open to Registrants

  10. Compliance Check and strategies

  11. Compliance check – the hazard • What is compliance? • Substance identity, classification and labelling • Hazard endpoints ( REACH Annexes VII to X) • Physico-chemical properties • Environment (soil, water, air) • Human Health (toxicokinetics, acute, irritation, sensitisation, repeat dose, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, toxicity to reproduction) • DNEL (PNEC) derivation

  12. Compliance check – exposure and risk • Do identified uses match expectations • Scope of environmental assessment • PBT assessment • Environmental exposure assessment and risk characterisation • Worker exposure assessment and risk characterisation • Consumer exposure assessment and risk characterisation

  13. Dossier selection • Specific endpoints – Areas of Concern • Dossiers flagged for compliance check through other processes • Random dossiers • Lead dossiers • Member dossiers • Poor quality dossiers

  14. Substance Evaluation

  15. Evaluation under REACH MSCAs Dossier evaluation Substance evaluation Testing proposal examination Compliance check Examine any information on a substance Output: Get more information on chemicals (if necessary) 12/19/2019 18

  16. Aim of Substance Evaluation • To clarify whether a “substance” constitutes risk to human health or environment • Potential formal outcome of substance evaluation: Request for further information to clarify risk (a decision) Can go beyond REACH standard data requirements. Risk confirmed or under control  no further information needs to be requested • If risk is already demonstrated, substance evaluation is not the appropriate route. Other processes should be initiated instead (e.g. authorisation, harmonised classification and labelling, restrictions). 12/19/2019 19

  17. Substance evaluation: decision making • Substance evaluation (draft) decisions are adopted in accordance with Articles 50 and 52  similar to CCH and TPE with the necessary changes being made (‘mutatis mutandis’ – only those things that need be changed). • But: multiple addressees for a decision! • ECHA intends to notify the DD/FD to all registrants at the same time • All registrants can comment, but recommendation is to coordinate INTERNAL 12/19/2019 20

  18. Timelines INTERNAL 12/19/2019 21

  19. Where are we so far?

  20. Testing Proposals – lessons learnt • Streamlined processes to meet pressing targets • Drafting process – standardisation of texts • Agreement on issues for PfA and comment • Try to limit formal discussions in MSC meetings – time consuming • Written procedures • Prior agreement, informal technical discussions • Plenty of in-depth discussion on issues of toxicology • Plenty of discussions around animal welfare issues • But generally highly focussed on defining hazard

  21. Testing proposals • Some registrants understand the process • Some registrants misunderstand the process • Inappropriate tests included in IUCLID • Some debate on exposure related issues – route issues • Are tests necessary at all? • Different perspectives of members of a joint submission • After informal discussions some registrants understand they have other options • Awaiting outcome in most cases as tests take time – Follow-up process

  22. Compliance check • Early emphasis on hazard endpoints • Missing endpoints • Deficient endpoints • Assessment of waivers • Generally issues with higher tier endpoints • Complicatedrules over use of exposure-based waiving • Substance identity is not always easy • Read across – great concept – tough in practice

  23. Compliance check • 2013 – the year of the compliance check! • Areas of concern (AoC) – mass screening for specific endpoint deficiencies • Evaluation directorate restructuring – specialisation • Addressing exposure and risk – CSR issues • Easy substances – difficult substances

  24. Substance Evaluation experience I • Exposure frequently addressed in the DDs • Initially in some cases the requests could be too general and a little vague (”refinement of exposure assessment”) • In many cases decisions concerned: • Parameters/modifiers used in the models • Details about the exposure scenarios • Tasks in the scenarios • RRMs in place and their efficacy • Information about the gloves, respiratory protection • Releases • MSCA need more information to confirm, through their own assessment, if the proposed RMMs are adequate … and if agreement can be reached with the Registrant assessment • It is possible to ask for these details in a SEv DD, but … 27

  25. Substance Evaluation experience II • The Registrant must understand how to improve the CSR, and the decision from the MSCA must be enforceable • Substance Evaluation Draft Decision is a ‘heavy’ tool, and it takes some time before the data is with the MSCA to consider • Could this information could be more easily provided during the evaluation period? • Evaluating MSCA may also conclude its exposure assessment using default (worst case?) parameters … 28

  26. Substance Evaluation experience III • If modelled data are not considered reliable enough for risk assessment, the evaluating MSCA may consider asking for … • A survey for defining parameters for modelling • A monitoring study – but beware! • When is this justified and proportionate? • When there is potential for (serious) adverse effects and the current available information/modelling indicate RCRs may be exceeded. A higher tier assessment may be necessary to confirm if: • Workers/consumers/environment are at risk and • Basis for possible RRM (restriction) is needed • Realistically, the Registrants must be able to collect the data • Early interaction between evaluating MSCA and Registrants may prove useful and provide a quicker/better outcome 29

  27. Information requests on exposure MSCAs need to consider when further information on exposure really is needed? Would interaction between the evaluating MSCA and Registrants increase efficiency, clarity and level of reassurance? Can recommendations be made as a result of the request? 30

  28. CCH versus SEV • Compliance Check is a powerfultool at the highesttonnagelevel • Substance Evaluation is morepowerful in lowertonnagelevels, but with fairlyhighaggregatedtonnages lots of maunfacturers and importers addressthemall at once • In the years to comeDossierEvaluation couldbeimportantroute for detectingCoRAPcandidates INTERNAL 12/19/2019 31

  29. Thank You. Questions and discussion

More Related