Categorization of the Canadian Domestic Substances List

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
March, 2009 An Overview of the Chemicals Management Plan.
Advertisements

ComET Peer Input Meeting Context & Objectives Nov. 8th, 2004 B ette Meek, Health Canada
Summary Slide Some Industry views on POP/PBT identification in Europe.
CE Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science Readings for This Class: O hio N orthern U niversity Introduction Chemistry, Microbiology.
Canada/Australia Issues being faced in the regulation of nano-materials Deborah Willcocks – Department of Health and Ageing, Government of Australia Anne-Marie.
1 High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program Diane Sheridan Chief, Existing Chemicals Branch, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention.
1 High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program – Future Directions Jim Willis Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and.
P2 Framework Models Overview Jan P2 Framework Models Overview Bill Waugh U.S. EPA
CONFERENCE ON “ FOOD ADDITIVES : SAFETY IN USE AND CONSUMER CONCERNS“ JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY NAIROBI, 24 JUNE 2014.
1 Development & Evaluation of Ecotoxicity Predictive Tools EPA Development Team Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010.
EPA Tier I Screening Process and
Page 1 Regulating Nanomaterials under CEPA CIELAP Workshop February 22, 2008 Bernard Madé, New Substances Program Environment Canada.
Presented by: Jake Sanderson Environment Canada Examining the Linkages between International HPV Programs and Canada December 11-14, 2006 HPV Conference.
Canada’s approach to Chemicals Management under the CMP – Domestic Update CEC SMOC Public Session San Antonio April 1&2, 2009.
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
Chemical Screening Programs Ted Smith Dale Phenicie.
CADTH Therapeutic Reviews
1 Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants Programme (PBT) launched by the EPA in 1998: - Reduce.
FAO/WHO CODEX TRAINING PACKAGE
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Interagency Testing Committee (ITC)
“Benchmarking” Exposure Priority Setting Tools U.S. EPA Exposure Based Chemical Prioritization Workshop April 6 th /10 M.E. (Bette) Meek McLaughlin Centre.
Characterizing Chemical in Commerce: Using Data on High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals December 12, 2006 L. Twerdok, Ph.D, DABT NPPTAC Member Report.
Results of Canadian DSL Categorization Activities – What’s Next CPPI April 28, 2006 Calgary AB Health Santé Canada.
Health-Related Components of DSL Categorization under CEPA 1999 Exposure and Hazard Tools Presented by: Jesse Ng Existing Substances Division Health Canada.
1 Discussion of the 2006 Inventory Update Reporting Data December 12, 2006 Nhan Nguyen U.S. EPA.
SCHC, 9/27/2005 US Implementation of the Globally Harmonized System The GHS Journey Continues…
United States Chemicals Management Petroleum Sector Approach Jennifer Galvin, PhD, DABT, CIH Sound Management of Chemicals Working Group – Stakeholder.
International Initiatives and the U.S. HPV Challenge Program Ken Geiser, PhD Lowell Center for Sustainable Production University of Massachusetts Lowell.
U.S. High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program Diane Sheridan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency October 25, 2005 Region 2 Emerging Chemicals Workshop.
Results of Categorization and Next Steps George Enei Director, Existing Substances Division May, 2006.
U.S. High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program Diane Sheridan U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics December 12, 2006.
Multimedia Assessment for New Fuels: Stakeholders’ Meeting September 13, 2005 Sacramento, CA Dean Simeroth, California Air Resources Board Dave Rice, Lawrence.
Barbara Cunningham Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics 1.
1 Selected Current and Suggested Ideas on Uses of HPV Challenge Data Nhan Nguyen US EPA Characterizing Chemicals in Commerce: Using Data on High Production.
Health Canada experiences with early identification of potential carcinogens - An Existing Substances Perspective Sunil Kulkarni Hazard Methodology Division,
Charge Question 4-1: Please comment on the ecotoxicity studies selected to represent the most sensitive species in each of the risk scenarios (acute aquatic,
1 Chemical Assessment and Management Program Tala Henry, ChAMP Coordinator Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1 Selecting Materials for Understanding the Human Health and Ecological Risks of Nanomaterials Considerations and Approach Justin Teeguarden, PhD., DABT.
CALIFORNIA proposed SAFER CONSUMER PRODUCT REGULATIONS Marjorie MartzEmerson October 24, 2012.
Pilot Projects on Strengthening Inventory Development and Risk Management-Decision Making for Mercury: A Contribution to the Global Mercury Partnership.
Categorization and Screening of the Domestic Substances List Path forward towards ecological prioritization of substances for assessment Existing Substances.
HC Screening State of the Science Reports Update to the ICG February 14th/05 Presented by: Bette Meek Existing Substances Division Health Canada.
ComET Peer Input Meeting Path Forward Nov. 8th, 2004 B ette Meek, Health Canada
An Overview of the Objectives, Approach, and Components of ComET™ Mr. Paul Price The LifeLine Group All slides and material Copyright protected.
1 Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program Environmental Summit May 20, 2008 Jim Alwood Chemical Control Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Environmental Protection Agency 1 The High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) Demonstration and Status National Environmental Partnership Summit.
Prioritization Process and Development of the Hazard Characterization Documents Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection.
Task Force on POPs Generic Guidelines and Procedures.
HERA Second European Stakeholder Workshop July Human & Environmental Risk Assessment An A.I.S.E and CEFIC initiative on targeted risk assessment.
1 State of play and outlook of modelling based prioritisation Klaus Daginnus Institute for Health & Consumer Protection Joint Research Centre, European.
California Sediment Quality Advisory Committee Meeting SWRCB Program to Develop Sediment Quality Objectives for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.
1 State of Play Prioritisation of Substances By modelling Hazard & Exposure Klaus Daginnus Institute for Health & Consumer Protection Joint Research Centre,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Development of the High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) December 12, 2006 Characterizing Chemicals.
Expert Sub-Group on EQSs –1. EQS Methodology Setting –2. Prioritization ? DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCES FOR WORKING GROUP E ON PRIORITY SUBSTANCES (Collaboration.
Transforming Our World: Delivering affordable medicines to anyone, anywhere, any day 1 Environmental hazards of substances Annex 1 – Part 4 of CLP Date:
General Concepts in QSAR for Using the QSAR Application Toolbox
Communication: Safety Summary
Anniston PCB Site Review of Risk Assessments for OU-1/OU-2
Safe Drinking Water Act , CCL and Perchlorate
Outline Part 1: Inventory Updates (IU) Approach and overview of the 2017 IU Part 2: Walkthrough of the 2017 IU online reporting tools HTML Excel 2.
UNECE LRTAP-38th Session of the September 2006
Decision Contexts in a Changing Toxicology Paradigm
Manny Marta, P.Eng. Project Lead
ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE OF POTENTIAL MAJOR ACCIDENTS
Canada’s Chemical Management Plan – post categorization of the DSL
Executive Order No. 23 Update Air & Waste Management Association Conference November 16, 2018 Presentation will focus on the latest policy development.
Nickel Risk Assessment
International Initiatives and the U.S. HPV Challenge Program
Introduction to Risk Assessment
Presentation transcript:

Categorization of the Canadian Domestic Substances List December 12-14, 2006 HPV Conference Austin, Texas Melissa Shaw Health Canada Nicole Davidson Environment Canada

What is the Domestic Substances List (DSL)? A list of substances that are “in commerce” in Canada – “existing substances” The DSL was created in 1991 - for the purpose of defining a “new substance” For categorization, focus on substances nominated as being, between 1984-1986: In Canadian commerce or used for commercial manufacturing in Canada, or; Manufactured or imported in Canada at >100 kg/year Does not include: contaminants, by-products and wastes Type of information originally collected on DSL substances in 1987 included: Company Headquarters and Site of Manufacture Type of Commercial Activity (import or manufacture) Use Code Quantity Range Substance CAS # and Name Molecular Formula/Structural Info (if available) There are new substances added to the DSL but these have already undergone assessment and therefore not subject to the categorization process. 1/15/2019

Types of Substances on the DSL (total 23,000 substances) UVCB = Unknown, Variable in composition, Complex reaction products, and Biologicals Diesel #1, & #2 1/15/2019

What is Categorization? Mandated under CEPA 1999 (S. 73) Ministers are required to categorize the 23,000 substances on the DSL by September 14, 2006 Categorization is a prioritization process that involves the systematic identification of substances on the DSL that should be subject to screening assessment (Section 74, CEPA 1999) DSL categorization is a precedent setting activity – no other jurisdiction has implemented such a program Important considerations: process is scientifically sound but practical allowing sufficient and efficient stakeholder input To be completed on time using available information and resources 1/15/2019

What is the Objective of Categorization? Identify substances, based on available information that: May present, to individuals in Canada, the greatest potential for exposure; or Are persistent (P) or bioaccumulative (B), in accordance with the Persistence and Bioaccumulation regs, and inherently toxic to humans or to non-human organisms, as determined by lab or other studies 1/15/2019

Human Health Related Aspects “Greatest potential for exposure” (GPE) all 23 000 substances on the DSL “Inherently Toxic to humans” (iThuman) subset of substances Which subset? Those that are P or B [but not inherently toxic to non-human organisms (iTeco)] 1/15/2019

Approach to Categorization for Human Health Use of Tools to maximize efficiency in prioritization of a large number of substances It was recognized that multiple stages of prioritization were required First Stage- needed to be simple and pragmatic Subsequent Stages- increased in complexity 1/15/2019

The Tools for Categorization Simple Tools Simple Exposure Tool (SimET) Relative ranking of all DSL substances based on submitters (S),quantity (Q) and expert ranked use (ERU) Simple Hazard Tool (SimHaz) Identification of high or low hazard compounds by various International agencies based on weight of evidence for multiple endpoints Complex Tools Complex Exposure Tool (ComET) Quantitative estimate of upper bounding environmental and consumer exposure for multiple age groups based on use scenarios Complex Hazard Tool (ComHaz) Hierarchy of multiple toxicological endpoints and data sources including QSAR 1/15/2019

The Draft Maximal List Application of the Simple Tools (SimET, SimHaz) Exposure – ranked all substances based on greatest potential for exposure and separated into one of three groups Greatest Potential for Exposure (GPE) Intermediate Potential for Exposure (IPE) Lowest Potential for Exposure (LPE Hazard- Identified both High and Low Hazard Substances Result Draft Maximal List Released in October 2004 Consisted of a total of 1896 substances Requested focused submission of information to fill data gaps 1/15/2019

Draft Maximal List Groups High Moderate Low High Hazard and LPE High Hazard and GPE or IPE IPE, P or B GPE IPE, P or B unknown Low Hazard “other” 1/15/2019

Refinement of the Maximal List Consideration of new and submitted information Identified those substances already assessed and/or managed under CEPA Application of the Complex Hazard Tool to the moderate group of substances 1/15/2019

Human Health Categorization Results High Hazard Substances This group of substances has a high likelihood of human exposure and a high hazard to human health (e.g. carcinogenicity, developmental toxicant) High or Intermediate Exposure (~100) Low Exposure (~160) Petroleum Stream Substances This group of substances has a high hazard to human health; substances are likely contained in plant processes and within the industry High/Intermediate Exposure (~160) Low Exposure (~100) High Exposure Substances Moderate Priorities – High or intermediate exposure and persistent or bioaccumulative (~680) This group of substances has a high likelihood of human exposure and persists or bioaccumulates in the body 1/15/2019

Categorization Criteria for P, B, and non-human iT Bioaccumulation BAF > 5000 or BCF > 5000 log Kow > 5 iT –non-humans Acute aquatic toxicity of LC(EC)50< 1mg/L, or a chronic aquatic toxicity of NOEC < 0.1 mg/L Persistence A substance is considered persistent if its transformation half-life satisfies the criterion in any one environmental medium or if it is subject to long-range transport Medium Half-life Air > 2 days (or LRT) Water > 6 months Sediment > 1 year Soil > 6 months 1/15/2019

Process for Ecological Categorization Define Technical Approach (Guidance Manual) Collection of Empirical Data and Generation of QSAR predictions* *released publicly on CD Scientific Evaluation of Data New Substances Division DSL Technical Working Group Participants from industry Participants from ENGOs Academics Provinces US - EPA Modeling experts Canada (SFU) OECD US-EPA Syracuse Research Centre International academics (Ovanes) Guidance documents and approach papers were subject to public comment periods Preliminary categorization decisions publicly distributed for past two years Release Preliminary Categorization Decisions* 1/15/2019

Process for Ecological Categorization (cont’d) Voluntary Submission of Data by Stakeholders* Scientific Evaluation of Data Issue Final Categorization Results (Sept 2006) Range of Industry working groups (e.g. ACC Phthalates Esters Panel, CPPI, ICG Aliphatics working group, CPMA, APE Research Council, etc.) Not Considered P/B and eco iT Considered P/B and eco iT 1/15/2019

Data Preference for P B iT Profiles Higher Experimental Medium Analogue / Groupings / Scientific rationale Lower Modelled (QSAR) 1/15/2019

Stakeholder Submission of Data June 2004, Canada launched an 18 month voluntary challenge to industrial stakeholders and interested parties to submit experimental study or other information that could help refine categorization decisions We received approx 20 larger data submissions for consideration and more than 400 individual studies addressing P, B or aquatic toxicity Approx. 20 submissions have been received covering the human health aspects of categorization 1/15/2019

Availability of Experimental Data For more than 11,500 organic substances examined, Experimental aquatic toxicity data was found for 1200 substances (80% accepted) Experimental P data was found for 1500 substances (50% accepted) Experimental B data was found for 440 substances (80% accepted) 2100 substances on the DSL are also part of the US HPV program and 3140 are part of the OECD HPV program The US HPV and OECD HPV programs provided: Aquatic toxicity data for approx. 160 substances (70% accepted) Persistence data for approx. 140 substances (90% accepted) Bioaccumulation data for approx. 10 substances (90% accepted) 1/15/2019

Ecological Categorization Results *Low volume <1T; Med volume>=1T and <1000T; High volume >=1000T 1/15/2019

More Information Chemical Substances Website: http://www.chemicalsubstances.gc.ca Health Canada Existing Substances Division Website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/contaminants/existsub/index_e.html Environment Canada Existing Substances Division Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese CD ROMS available by request 1/15/2019