IMO has published the report from ESPH 29

The International Maritime Organization has published the Report of the twenty-ninth session of the Technical Group on the Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of Chemicals that was held from 30 October to 3 November 2023.

New substances

The Group was informed that GESAMP/EHS 60, as part of its regular work, had considered submissions for seven new substances and had assigned GESAMP Hazard Profiles (GHPs) accordingly, which had subsequently been added to the GESAMP Composite List (PPR.1/Circ.13, annexes 3 and 4).

Re-evaluation of substances

With regard to existing substances, the Group noted that GESAMP/EHS 60 had reviewed GHP ratings for three existing substances, based on new data received or on a review of existing data, and:

.1 had confirmed the current GHPs for "Potassium chloride (less than 26%)" (EHS 2345) and "Sodium bromide solution (less than 50%)" (EHS 2387);
.2 had agreed to change the name of "Cesium formate, drilling brines" (EHS 2384) in the Composite List to "Cesium formate solution" in order to have consistent naming of various inorganic salt solutions; and
.3 had included the updates in the updated GESAMP Composite List (PPR.1/Circ.13, annex 4).

Remaining re-evaluations from EHS 59

The Group noted that GESAMP/EHS 60 had reviewed the files for "Coal tar pitch (molten)" (EHS 491), "Coal tar" (EHS 499), "Coal tar naphtha" (EHS 500), and "Creosote (coal tar) C8-C22, MW 116-278" (EHS 2514) and had noted that:

.1 EHS 44 and EHS 45 had thoroughly reviewed the files for "Coal tar pitch (molten)" (EHS 491), "Coal tar" (EHS 499), and "Coal tar naphtha" (EHS 500) and had confirmed the A1 ratings; and
.2 "Creosote (coal tar) C8-C22, MW 116-278" (EHS 2514) had been assessed recently (GESAMP/EHS 55).

The Group further noted that GESAMP/EHS 60 had recognized the work done by previous sessions of GESAMP/EHS on these four products and, in light of the substantial workload, had agreed that a more detailed review of these files was not necessary at this stage unless there was a future request for re-evaluation of any of these products.

Estimation of acute dermal toxicity

The Group recalled that with regard to the estimation of acute dermal toxicity:

Information on acute dermal toxicity was sometimes lacking in submissions to GESAMP/EHS, partly due to the restriction in animal testing of corrosive substances for ethical reasons;
It had noted at recent sessions that according to the GHS and the methodology described in GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 102, corrosive or irritating properties were not reflected in the acute dermal toxicity rating in column C2;
EHS 59 had agreed that in cases where acute dermal toxicity ratings were estimated solely on acute oral toxicity information in the absence of acute dermal toxicity test data and when the D1 and/or D2 ratings were greater than zero, a note would be included in the report to flag that the C2 rating does not take into account the potential for irritation or corrosion; and
EHS 59 had listed three potential options that GESAMP/EHS could pursue in this context:

a. Continuing with the practice of estimating the C2 rating based solely on acute oral toxicity information in the absence of dermal toxicity test data; and for substances where the D1 and/or D2 ratings were greater than zero, noting in the report that the C2 rating was based on oral acute toxicity and did not take into account the potential for irritation or corrosion;
b. Developing an extrapolation method for acute dermal toxicity in a similar fashion to the GESAMP acute inhalation toxicity extrapolation method; or
c. Assigning "NI" for C2 in the absence of acute dermal toxicity test data and providing advice to the ESPH Technical Group on how the "NI" rating should be interpreted in combination with the C1, D1, and D2 ratings.

The Group further recalled that ESPH 28 had noted the three options above and had expressed a preference for the third option if GESAMP/EHS was able to develop advice for subsequent inclusion in a revision of PPR.1/Circ.7.

In this context, the Group noted that, with regard to the C2 rating, GESAMP/EHS 60 had considered how best to provide the ESPH Technical Group advice on interpreting an "NI" assignment, and had agreed that its preferred approach in the absence of acute dermal toxicity data would be to assign an estimated C2 rating on a case-by-case basis to substances wherever possible, to enable evaluations by the ESPH Technical Group.

This estimated rating would follow careful consideration of all information provided relevant to dermal toxicity, for example, any provided rationales in conjunction with acute oral toxicity data and, if appropriate, D1 and D2 ratings.

GESAMP/EHS 60 also agreed that it would continue its practice of noting in its report any relevant information that provided additional context for the estimated C2 rating.

This report was published on 17 November 2023.

For more information, please see the document below (available only to subscribers):