Pollution Prevention Planning Consultations
Revisions and Response to Stakeholders' Comments - Nonylphenol and its Ethoxylates Contained in Products
As part of the ongoing consultations with stakeholders on the proposed pollution prevention (P2) planning requirements for Nonylphenol (NP) and its Ethoxylates (NPEs) contained in products, Environment Canada has collected and assessed comments on the Working Document that was distributed to affected stakeholders on June 16, 2003. The Working Document and comments received provided the framework for the preparation of the Proposed Notice Requiring the Preparation and Implementation of Pollution Prevention Plans in Respect of Nonylphenol (NP) and its Ethoxylates (NPEs) Contained in Products. The proposed Notice was published in Part I of the Canada Gazette, on November 29, 2003.
This document has been prepared to present the comments and issues raised by stakeholders on the Working Document with Environment Canada's response and to identify and explain revisions made to the Working Document.
Part I: Revisions to the Working Document
Part II: Summary of Revisions and Response to Comments on the Working Document
Part I: Revisions to the Working Document
Part I of this document presents the major changes that have been made to the Working Document in the preparation of the proposed Notice.
The revisions are based on the comments received from stakeholders and further information gathered by Environment Canada. The revisions that are based on the comments received from stakeholders are briefly outlined in this part of the document for completeness only. The rationale for these changes is presented in Part II of this document along with the corresponding comment.
Revision #1: Modified scope of application of the P2 planning requirements (threshold of NP and NPEs purchased annually).
The scope of application of the P2 planning requirements, presented in section 1 of the proposed Notice, has been amended. The threshold of NP and NPEs purchased annually, which establishes who is subject to the Final Notice, has been increased from 1000 kg to 2000 kg. The rationale for this change is presented in Part II of this document (Comment #1).
Revision #2: Removal of phenol,nonyl-,phosphite (otherwise known as trisnonylphenyl phosphite or TNPP) from the list of Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Numbers for most commonly used NP and NPEs in Canadian industry.
TNPP has been removed from the list of CAS Numbers for most commonly used NP and NPEs in Canadian industry that is presented in the Instruction Insert. However, TNPP has been added to the list of commonly used NP and NPEs salts and derivatives used in Canadian industry. This list presents products which, due to their potential to produce NP or NPEs, are not appropriate alternatives to NP and NPEs. The rationale for this change is presented in Part II of this document (Comment #5).
Revision #3: Revised definition of "NP and NPEs in final products", "soap and cleaning products", "textile wet processing aids" and "pulp and paper processing aids".
The definition of the expressions "NP and NPEs in final products", "soap and cleaning products", "textile wet processing aids" and "pulp and paper processing aids" presented in the Instruction Insert have been revised such that they refer to products containing NP and NPEs as "an ingredient". The rationale for this change is presented in Part II of this document (Comment #3).
Revision #4: Modified format of the Schedules associated to the Working Document.
The format of the schedules associated to the Working Document has been modified such that the actual forms which stakeholders will use to provide information required by the Final Notice have been replaced with a summary of information to be contained in the forms. The content of the forms has not been changed and the information presented in the revised schedules is consistent with the information which was proposed in the Working Document.
This change was made for reasons of practicality since the alternative format condenses the size of the Notice that will be published in the Canada Gazette. The change was also made to provide some flexibility to make minor changes to clarify the forms during the implementation of the P2 planning requirements without the requirement to publish the revised form in the Canada Gazette.
Revision #5: Expanded definition of textile wet processing aids.
The definition of "textile wet processing aids" in the Instruction Insert has been expanded to provide more information on what processes Environment Canada considers to be "wet processes" and to be consistent with the information presented in the proposed Notice for P2 plans regarding Textile Mill Effluents (TMEs). The rationale for this change is presented in Part II of this document (Comment #2).
Part II: Summary of Revisions and Response to Comments on the Working Document
Part II of this document summarizes and responds to the comments submitted from stakeholders on the Working Document. All comments have been noted and considered, however they may not be reported verbatim as similar comments have been combined and paraphrased to ensure brevity.
Comment#1: The threshold limit of NP and NPEs purchased annually which establishes the scope of application of the pollution prevention planning requirements should be increased from 1000 kg to 2000 kg, as Environment Canada proposed in previous consultations.
Environment Canada agrees with this recommendation. The threshold of NP and NPEs purchased annually, which establishes who is subject to the Final Notice, has been increased from 1000 kg to 2000 kg.
During consultations for the proposed risk management objective and risk management instrument for NP and NPEs contained in products, Environment Canada originally proposed a threshold of 2000 kg. This proposed threshold was subsequently revised to 1000 kg in the Working Document since a lower threshold was expected to more accurately reflect the intended scope of application of the P2 planning requirements. Following a review of the anticipated number of companies subject to the P2 planning requirements as well as the associated proportion of NP and NPEs captured by the two thresholds, Environment Canada has concluded that a 2000 kg threshold will ensure that the majority of products containing NP and NPEs will be subject to the requirements of the P2 plans and maintain the objective of excluding companies using or importing small quantities of NP and NPEs.
Comment #2: Greater clarification is needed on the processes that are and are not within the scope of "wet textile processing".
Environment Canada considers wet textile processes to be those textile manufacturing and processing processes that use significant quantities of water. The proposed Notice targets NP and NPEs contained in processing aids used for the following processes, considered to be wet processes: scouring, neutralizing, desizing, mercerizing, carbonizing, fulling, bleaching, dyeing, printing, finishing and any other wet processes.
In order to clarify what is within the scope of wet textile processing, definitions of the processes which Environment Canada considers to be wet textile processing, as defined in the supporting document to the Priority Substances List Assessment carried out on textile mill effluents1, have been provided in the Instruction Insert.
Comment #3: Environment Canada should establish a de minimis NP and NPE concentration level for the threshold calculation to alleviate the burden of establishing the presence of negligible quantities of NP and NPEs in final products.
Environment Canada agrees that residual quantities of NP and NPEs that may inadvertently be contained in final products does not need to be included in the threshold calculation which establishes who is subject to the Final Notice. However, rather than establishing a de minimis concentration level, Environment Canada is proposing an alternate approach.
The threshold calculation for the proposed P2 planning requirements is intended to apply to NP and NPEs as an active ingredient in products and not residual quantities that may be present in negligible concentrations from starting materials or from the manufacturing process. To clarify this intent, Environment Canada has revised the definitions of "NP and NPEs in final products", "soap and cleaning products", "textile wet processing aids" and "pulp and paper processing aids" presented in the Instruction Insert such that they refer to products containing NP and NPEs as "an ingredient". The explicit reference to NP and NPEs as an ingredient in the definition of these expressions will exclude products which contain negligible residual quantities of NP and NPEs from the application of the proposed P2 planning requirements.
Comment #4: The overall risk management objective should be the environmental objective.
There are two types of objectives in the risk management strategy. The first is the environmental objective which describes a condition of the environment which would be desirable to achieve. The second objective is the risk management objective which is release or product based, based on what the industry can manage, prevent or control. For NP and NPEs, the environmental objective is to achieve ambient concentrations in Canadian waters that do not exceed the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines of 1.0 g/L NP TEQ for freshwater and 0.7 g/L NP TEQ for marine waters. It is difficult to make a 'scientific' link between the risk management objective and the environmental objective because the concentration of NP and NPEs in the environment depends on various release sources and conditions, which is difficult to relate directly to the concentration of NP and NPEs in certain products. The risk management objective for products containing NP and NPEs is based on the best available techniques economically achievable for soap and cleaning products, pulp and paper processing aids, and textile wet processing aids.
Comment #5: Phenol,nonyl-,phosphite (otherwise known as trisnonylphenyl phosphite or TNPP) should not be included on the list of NP and NPEs and should not be covered in the Working Document.
Environment Canada agrees that TNPP should not be included in the list of commonly used NP and NPEs in Canadian industry. Please note that this list has been included in the Instruction Insert for guidance purposes only, is non-exhaustive, and does not preclude NP and NPEs with CAS numbers not appearing on this list.
Following a review of this substance, Environment Canada has concluded that TNPP is derived from NP, that it typically contains free NP as an impurity at 1 to 3% and that it has the potential to produce NP though its degradation. Based on these conclusions, Environment Canada does not consider TNPP to be a NP or a NPE and it has therefore been removed from the list of CAS Numbers for most commonly used NP and NPEs in Canadian industry. However, based on the conclusion that TNPP has the potential to produce NP through its degradation, it has been added to the list of CAS numbers for most commonly used NP and NPEs salts and derivatives in Canadian industry. This list is provided in the Instruction Insert to outline substances which, due to their potential to produce NP or NPEs, are not appropriate alternatives to NP and NPEs.
Comment #6: The Working Document should provide flexibility in development of P2 Plans such that means other than product reformulation, such as best available control technologies (BACT) or improved wastewater treatment, are options to achieve the overall Environmental Objective.
The reduction targets and timelines proposed in the P2 planning requirements for products containing NP and NPEs are based on the best available techniques economically achievable for soap and cleaning products, pulp and paper processing aids, and textile wet processing aids.
Product reformation is recommended since substitutes for NP and NPEs showing a better environmental profile do exist, and the use of these would reduce environmental risks associated with NP and NPEs. Improved wastewater treatment is not the focus of the proposed instrument for a number of reasons:
- The cornerstone of CEPA 1999 is pollution prevention which encourages reduction at the source (i.e. reformulation of products).
- Based on experience in other jurisdictions, notably in Europe, it is both technically and economically feasible to reduce the amount of NP and NPEs in cleaning products, and comments received from industry indicate that this is also true in Canada.
- Not all secondary or tertiary treatment plants are equally as effective at treating wastewater, and the quality of effluent from treatment plants providing the same level of treatment may vary considerably, depending on a variety of factors, including the plant's design, the skill of its operators, fluctuations in the flow level, overflows and the season of the year
Comment #7: Guidance should be provided on means to assess suitable substitutes to NP and NPEs.
A study on alternatives to NP and NPEs has been conducted and all stakeholders have access to the information. The study reviewed the environmental profiles (e.g. toxicity, biodegradation), effectiveness and availability of the 3 most commonly used groups of alternatives to NP and NPEs. It concluded that there are a wide variety of different surfactants that can be used as effective substitutes for NP and NPEs and that have better toxicity profiles. As well, some common alternatives for NP and NPEs degrade much more rapidly and therefore pose a lesser threat to the environment. Reducing environmental risk is desirable, and this is possible through the use of a surfactant with a better toxicity profile than NP and NPEs.
Comment #8: The proposed reduction of 95% mass use or import of NP and NPEs is virtual elimination which is inappropriate for NP and NPEs.
A 95% reduction of NP and NPEs from soap and cleaning products, processing aids used in textile wet processing and pulp and paper processing aids would not result in virtual elimination of NP and NPEs from the environment because these products account for approximately 80% of NP and NPEs released from products.
In order to provide some flexibility to those companies that may have difficulty reformulating all of their products, Environment Canada has previously reduced the proposed Phase 2 reduction target from 100% to 95%.
Comment #9: It is unclear if the threshold of NP and NPEs purchased annually applies per facility or per national organization.
The threshold of NP and NPEs purchased annually applies to manufacturers and importers of products targeted by the proposed Notice, regardless of the number of facilities.
Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Working Document have been revised such that further explanation on filing a Declaration of Preparation, a Declaration of Implementation and Interim Progress Reports is provided for the case where one company has more than one facility subject to the P2 planning requirements.
Comment #10: Clarify section 2 such that any products exported to another country are excluded from the threshold calculation of NP and NPEs purchased annually.
Products that are exported to another country are explicitly exempted from the P2 planning requirements in section 2 of the proposed Notice. It is therefore clear that the quantity of NP and NPEs contained in products exported to another country are not to be counted in the threshold calculation.
Comment #11: Is the implementation of the "factors to consider" a mandatory portion of the pollution prevention planning requirements?
The preparation and implementation of P2 plans is mandatory, as well as the submission of required declarations and interim reports. As well, it is mandatory that P2 Plans contain the required information and consider the "factors" to be identified in the notice. This includes consideration of the risk management objective, indicating if and how the risk management objective is to be achieved, and if it is not going to be met, explaining why. As well, enforcement officers or analysts may request access to a company's P2 Plan to ensure compliance with information that has been filed. Non-compliance with any of the legal requirements in the notice constitutes a criminal offence and may be punishable under CEPA 1999. Steps would be taken to encourage compliance, and the maximum penalty could be fines of up to $1,000,000 or imprisonment for up to three years.
Comment #12: The timing for the implementation of the reduction targets for persons subject to the Final Notice after the date of publication in the Canada Gazette is too short. All persons subject to the Notice should have 36 months to achieve the reduction targets.
Environment Canada believes that the proposed timeline to prepare and implement the proposed P2 planning requirements for persons subject to the Notice after the date of publication is reasonable and necessary to discourage future uses of NP and NPEs.
A shortened timeline for persons subject to the Notice after the date of publication of the Final Notice is being proposed to discourage companies who are currently using NP and NPE in quantities less than the threshold, from increasing their usage in the future. The intent of this approach is to minimize the potential for reductions undertaken by companies complying with the P2 planning requirements to be offset by companies introducing products containing NP and NPEs into the market after the date of publication of the Final Notice.
Comment #13: It is inappropriate to prohibit the use OP and OPEs as a substitute to NP and NPEs.
The proposed P2 planning requirements for NP and NPEs contained in products do not prohibit the use of octylphenol (OP) and octylphenol ethoxylates (OPEs). Rather, Environment Canada has referenced OP and OPEs in the proposed Notice as alternatives that should not be considered for NP and NPEs.
Based on a preliminary review of OP and OPEs as part of the Priority Substances List Assessment Report for NP and NPEs, it was concluded that OP and OPEs have similar toxicological properties to NP and NPEs, are present in similar environmental compartments and may have greater estrogenic properties than that of NP and NPEs. As such, Environment Canada is proposing that OP and OPEs should not be considered as replacements to NP and NPEs since their use may amplify rather than reduce the risk to the environment.
Comment #14: The P2 planning requirements should provide an exemption for the use of NP and NPEs that does not pose an environmental risk.
The background information collected in support of the risk management objective indicates that the 3 product types included in the proposed P2 planning requirements represent an estimated 80% of releases of NP and NPEs and are therefore the most significant contributors to environmental releases. An exemption to the P2 planning requirements for the manufacture or import of products containing NP and NPEs in circumstances where NP and NPE does not pose an environmental risk would not be a practical approach since it would be unrealistic for manufacturers or importers to establish and quantify the environmental risk associated to the use of each product.
Comment #15: For the successful implementation of the proposed pollution prevention planning requirements, an aggressive outreach campaign and a simple structure of the requirements are necessary.
Environment Canada agrees with the recommendation. Changes to the Working Document, as well as to the associated forms and instructions, have been made in an effort to simply and clarify the proposed P2 planning requirements. Environment Canada will continue to work on making the requirements clear and straightforward.
Also, informing affected stakeholders of this issue will continue to be a priority for Environment Canada following the publication of the Final Notice in Part I of the Canada Gazette. The scope of the communication approach includes manufacturers, importers, industry groups and associations, end-users and consumers of the 3 product categories included in the P2 planning requirements.
1 Supporting document for Textile Mill Effluents, Government of Canada, Environment Canada, Environment Protection Branch Atlantic Region, 2000
- Date Modified: