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 news3 June 2013 ECHA website

2923 more chemicals registered9084 new registrations3215 companies

22/11/2012 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

22/11/2012 4

Dossier & Substance Evaluation

A brief description of Evaluation Processes under REACH

22/11/2012 6

Report 2012 Facts and figures 2012

http://echa.europa.eu/documents

Testing Proposals

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

22/11/2012 8

22/11/2012 9

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

22/11/2012 10

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

22/11/2012 11

Compliance Check and strategies

22/11/2012 13

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

22/11/2012 14

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

22/11/2012 15

Dossier selection

• Specific endpoints – Areas of Concern

• Dossiers flagged for compliance check through other processes

• Random dossiers

• Lead dossiers

• Member dossiers

• Poor quality dossiers

22/11/2012 16

Substance Evaluation

04/21/23 1804/21/23 18

Dossier evaluation Substance evaluation

Testing proposal examination

Compliance check

Output:

Get more information on chemicals (if necessary)

Examine any information on a substance

MSCAs

Evaluation under REACH

04/21/23 1904/21/23 19

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).

22/11/2012 2004/21/23INTERNAL 20

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

04/21/23 2104/21/23INTERNAL 21

Substance Evaluation

Evaluation to a draft decision Up to 12 months

If draft decision: decision making procedure

2 – 8 months (if MSC)

Generation of the information by registrant(s)

From ~6 months to several years

Evaluation of the obtained information (flagging)

up to 12 months

Conclusion on the need for C&L, SVHC, restriction

?

∑ in minimum Min 2.5 –3 years?

Timelines

Where are we so far?

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

22/11/2012 23

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

22/11/2012 24

Compliance check

• Early emphasis on hazard endpoints• Missing endpoints• Deficient endpoints• Assessment of waivers

• Generally issues with higher tier endpoints• Complicated rules over use of exposure-based waiving

• Substance identity is not always easy

• Read across – great concept – tough in practice

22/11/2012 25

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

22/11/2012 26

22/11/2012 27

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

22/11/2012 28

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

04/21/23 29

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

04/21/23 30

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

04/21/23 3104/21/23INTERNAL 31

CCH versus SEV

• Compliance Check is a powerful tool at the highest tonnage level

• Substance Evaluation is more powerful in lower tonnage levels, but with fairly high aggregated tonnages

lots of maunfacturers and importers address them all at once

• In the years to come Dossier Evaluation could be important route for detecting CoRAP candidates

Thank You.

Questions and discussion