by Anna Tilman and Delores Broten
Tens of thousands of substances have been in commercial use in Canada for decades without any assessment of their potential toxicity to human health or the environment. It was only in 1994 that the picture brightened when Canada began to require such an evaluation before any new substance could be placed on the market.
This left a backlog of approximately 23,000 substances to be tested. Some of these substances, in commercial use for a very long time, were known or suspected carcinogens, neurotoxins, developmental toxins and endocrine disruptors. The need to test them was extremely urgent.
In response to this need, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was revised in 1999 to require the government to “categorize” these 23,000 untested substances and identify those that were of concern by September 2006. At the end of this seven-year exercise, approximately 4,300 substances were identified as being potentially harmful to human health and/or the environment. By law, the federal government is required to take action on those substances.
The Harper government’s response to this legal requirement was the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP), announced in December 2006. It purported to “include a number of new, proactive measures to make sure that substances are managed properly” and the Prime Minister’s press release said, “The Plan takes immediate action to regulate chemicals that are harmful to human health and the environment.”
Except for a mention of product labeling, the announcement gave few details. It highlighted “key objectives” that were couched in vague language – strengthening the existing substances regime, integrating government activities, establishing government accountability, and strengthening industry’s role in safely managing risks from their chemicals. There was no mention of the precautionary principle, pollution prevention, or the protection of the most vulnerable people and ecosystems.
Now that almost a year has elapsed since its announcement, it is time to take stock of this Plan.
“The Plan” at a Glance
The Plan’s objective is to take appropriate action by 2020 on all of the 4,300 substances identified as potentially hazardous.
• Approximately 500 have been designated as “high priority” because they are persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic to non-human organisms, and/or pose a high hazard to human health (as carcinogens, mutagens, developmental toxins or reproductive toxins).
• Another 2,600 are designated as “medium priority,” while
• 1,200 are considered to be of “low concern.”
The entire process by which these substances have been selected for priority action is unclear, and therefore unreliable.
High Priority
The “high priority” substances, the key focus of the Plan, are being dealt with in various ways. The “Challenge” program addresses 193 of the most worrisome chemicals and is currently the only aspect of the Plan that has received any publicity. Under this process, industry has been “challenged” to provide any new information that would affect the government’s decision on what action to take for these substances, in particular, whether to declare them toxic under CEPA 1999.
Over the next three years, batches of these substances along with their technical profiles are being published periodically to solicit any additional information on the use of these substances. (See www.chemicalsubstances.gc.ca).
If no new information is received, the government has indicated it will declare these substances toxic under CEPA 1999. It is then subject to a risk assessment, followed by a risk management strategy.
Where “new” information is received, the government will decide whether to declare it toxic under CEPA or refer it for more detailed study, or take no further action.
150 of the 500 high priority substances are not currently used in Canada. If there is any new use proposed for any of these substances, it will be assessed as if it were new to the Canadian market.
The balance of the “high priority” substances (150) is related to the petroleum industry. There is no information on any proposed actions for these substances.
Medium Priority
As yet, no plan has been released to address the 2600 substances considered “medium priority,” although it looks like the government plans to use voluntary measures, such as Environmental Performance Agreements (EPAs) between industry and government.
Low Priority
The 1,200 substances designated as “low” priority were considered by government not to pose a risk to the environment or human health. These substances were given a “rapid screening.” 754 substances were identified as not toxic, requiring “no further action.” However, the process used to identify these substances failed to apply the precautionary principle and also failed to assess toxicity to humans. What will happen with the remaining substances is unclear.
Making Haste Very Slowly
For the “high priority” substances under the Challenge program, the CMP barely speeds up the previous process. These substances will not work their way through the steps in the assessment system until 2011. There is no actual deadline for the implementation of any action.
In summary, the Chemical Management Plan does not offer anything new, different or improved for “managing” toxic substances over what has been in place since 1999, above all, in taking action against known hazards.
Given how little has been achieved so far by existing legislative or other processes, it is highly questionable whether these same processes can deal adequately and effectively with the thousands of chemicals that have been identified as potentially hazardous.
If the Government were serious about addressing chemical hazards in our environment today, then it would dedicate its resources and will power to preventative measures and the strict prohibition of harmful substances.
The Chemicals Management Plan should be viewed as a new coat of paint on a tired old structure that has never functioned because of decades of inertia.
***
Anna Tilman is Chair of the Canadian Environmental Network Toxics Caucus.
[From WS November/December 2007]