Institutional links

• Main Menu

  • Canada's Actions on Chemicals
  • Chemicals Management Plan
  • The Challenge
    • Challenge Advisory Panel
    • Batch 1 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 2 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 3 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 4 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 5 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 6 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 7 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 8 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 9 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 10 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 11 Challenge Substances
    • Batch 12 Challenge Substances
  • The Petroleum Sector Stream Approach
  • The Substance Groupings Initiative
  • Fact Sheets & Frequently Asked Questions

• Stay Connected

  • Latest News
  • Subscribe

• Explore...

  • Acronyms
  • Glossary
  • Site Map

• Accountability

  • Proactive Disclosure

Chemicals Management Plan Challenge Advisory Panel Summary Report

December 14-15, 2009

• Panel members present: Dr. Ted Boadway (Chair), Dr. Jack Bend, Dr. Nicola Cherry, Dr. Scott Findlay (December 14), Mr. Geoff Granville, Dr. Steve Maguire, Dr. Gina Muckle, Dr. Peter Orris.
• Regrets: Dr. Conrad Brunk, Dr. John Eyles, Dr. Scott Findlay (December 15), Ms. Linda Lusby, Dr. Dayna Scott.

Outline:

At the Panel's request, a half-day pre-meeting session was held December 14, 2009. The purpose of this half-day session was a general discussion of topics of interest that had been identified by the Panel during the July 27, 2009 meeting.

The Challenge Advisory Panel meeting agenda for December 15, 2009 was structured around an overview of Batch 8 draft screening assessments. Government officials presented and answered questions related to the Batch 8 assessments.

Meeting Summary:

December 14, 2009

The following three topics formed the basis of the discussions during the half-day pre-meeting:

1. The use of chemical analogues in ecological assessments of Challenge substances.
2. Characterization of carcinogens (threshold, non-threshold) in the Challenge.
3. Impurities in chemical substances.

Government officials presented on each topic, and each presentation was followed by a general Panel discussion.

December 15, 2009

The meeting began with a scheduled in camera session for Panel members. Government officials were invited to attend following the in camera session.

Welcome and Introductory Comments

The Chair welcomed all members and government staff. The meeting was opened with introductory remarks from the Chair and a report from the Panel's in camera session.

The Panel thanked government officials for the work that had been put into the topics presented during the December 14 pre-meeting, indicating these presentations had been informative.

The Panel indicated they would like to hold additional half-day sessions to precede the meetings planned around Batch 10 and Batch 12.

Discussion of the Challenge Advisory Panel Evaluation Report

As specified in the Terms of Reference for the Challenge Advisory Panel, an evaluation of the operations of the Panel and its contributions to the Chemicals Management Plan Ministerial Challenge was conducted in 2009. The resulting Panel Evaluation Report, produced on contract by Intersol, was completed in November 2009. The results of the report were expected to inform any modifications to Panel operations.

At the Panel meeting, government officials presented an overview of the methodology behind the Panel Evaluation Report, as well as key results and recommendations. The evaluation was based on Panel member and government official responses to a questionnaire and follow-up telephone interviews. It was noted that the results of the evaluation were generally very positive, both from a contributions and operations perspective. It was also noted that the approach to the operations and procedures of the Panel has evolved over the course of the Panel's mandate.

Recommendations, made to improve the operations and contributions of the Panel, are summarized as follows:

1. Formally adopt the joint agenda setting and issues identification approach.
2. Set meeting dates further in advance and avoid re-scheduling to ensure greater representation of Panel members.
3. Panel members should be given the time necessary to develop a shared understanding of weight of evidence, the application of precaution and consensus as well as how these terms will be applied when providing their advice.
4. Develop better reporting systems that capture the Panel deliberations and advice, how the advice has been used and, consider providing the public with the rationale for the advice provided by the Panel.
5. Consider bringing in experts with greater depth of knowledge as needed to help inform Panel discussions.
6. Consider expanding the mandate of the Panel to include consideration of elements of risk management.

A general discussion of these recommendations took place. With regards to setting meeting dates, avoiding rescheduling, and formal adoption of the joint agenda setting and issues identification approach, there was agreement by Panel members and government officials that these recommendations would be adhered to going forward.

Regarding the third recommendation above, there was consensus by the Panel that weight of evidence and uncertainty should be topics for a future half-day session.

Regarding reporting systems, it was noted that that the level of detail captured in the July 2009 report was appropriate.

Regarding the recommendation to bring in experts with greater depth of knowledge as needed to inform Panel discussions, Panel members clarified they did not mean experts with greater depth of knowledge pertaining to risk assessment, but rather greater depth of knowledge on precaution and weight of evidence. The consensus reached by the Panel was that it would be incumbent upon Panel members in the future to identify specific situations in which additional expertise might be useful. Government officials indicated there was additional expertise within the departments that could be accessed as appropriate.

Regarding the recommendation to consider expanding the Panel mandate to include consideration of elements of risk management, government officials indicated it would not be timely to expand the Panel's mandate significantly with only four Batches remaining in the Challenge. Government officials noted this recommendation would be taken into consideration when discussing potential future Chemicals Management Plan advisory bodies.

Panel Discussion on Batch 8 Draft Screening Assessment Reports

Government staff presented an overview of draft screening assessments for the substances in Batch 8 of the Challenge.

Topics raised by Panel members included the following:

• It was observed that the level of detail provided under the uses section of the assessments can vary between substances. Government officials clarified that there are requirements outlining the proper use of confidential business information, and that the information provided in the assessment reports is structured to adhere to those requirements.
• Panel members noted that for some of the substances in Batch 8, although exposure to the general population is considered to be low, occupational exposures may be of concern. Government officials clarified that the results of screening assessments under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) focus on non-occupational exposures. Government officials indicated that occupational health jurisdictions are regularly involved in Challenge Batch release and substance briefings, so that they can appropriately convey information to their stakeholders. The Panel indicated they would be interested in hearing more about this topic at a future meeting.
• There was some discussion related to risk characterization for human health for specific substances in Batch 8. There was discussion around the approach taken to the characterization of risk for butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA; CAS No. 25013-16-5) following dermal exposures and for different subpopulations, including children.
• For the Batch 8 substance DTBSBP (CAS No. 17540-75-9), a member of the Panel noted the substance is part of a broader category of chemicals that includes substances subject to future assessment under the Chemicals Management Plan. The Panel member noted that a range of analogue substances could have been used in the assessment for DTBSBP, rather than a single substance.
• In some cases, Panel members suggested clarifications of language in the context of specific draft assessments. For the substance MAPBAP acetate (CAS No. 72102-55-7), it was suggested that more specific information on the assumptions used in the ecological exposure characterization be included in the draft screening assessment report. It was additionally suggested that justification for the selection of an analogue substance for benzenepropanoic acid ester (CAS No. 70331-94-1) should be strengthened. Government officials indicated they would take these suggestions into consideration when finalizing the draft assessments.

Overall, the Panel considered that weight of evidence and precaution were applied appropriately in the draft screening assessment reports.

Roundtable

One Panel member asked for clarification regarding the change in conclusion for one of the substances in Batch 6 - DHNUP (CAS No. 68515-42-4) - which took place between the draft and final publication stages. Government officials clarified that new information had been received during the public comment period which helped to clarify the use patterns for this substance, thereby improving ecological exposure and risk characterization in the screening assessment, and resulting in a final conclusion that the substance was not of concern to the environment.

Topics for Discussion at Future Panel Meetings

Government officials asked whether the Panel would be amenable to providing advice on occasional non-Challenge substances. The Panel members were amenable to this.

There were two topics identified by the Panel for future discussion:

1. A discussion of weight of evidence and uncertainty.
2. Occupational exposures to chemicals.