Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing Sector - Isoprene

Responses to Stakeholder's Comments

Response to Stakeholder's Comments on the Proposed Notice Requiring the Preparation and Implementation of Pollution Prevention Plans in Respect of Specified Substances on Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Related to the Resin and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing Sector

Plastics and Rubber Section
Chemical Production Division
Environment Canada

Summary

On January 31, 2009, the Ministers of the Environment and of Health concluded that isoprene (1,3 butadiene, 2-methyl-) meets the criterion set out in section 64(c) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). Under CEPA 1999, a risk management instrument requiring preventative or control actions must be finalized and published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, by June 30, 2012. 

Environment Canada has developed a sector-based Pollution Prevention (P2) Planning Notice for the Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing Sector. Although currently this Notice only addresses releases of isoprene (CAS RN 78-79-5)[1] to air from the Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing Sector, in the future Environment Canada may amend the Notice to add other substances related to that sector. 

On January 1, 2011, a proposed Notice containing the elements of the final Notice was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for a 60-day public comment period.

This document outlines the various comments received from stakeholders on the Proposed P2 Planning Notice, and how they have been considered and addressed during the development of the final P2 Planning Notice (hereafter referred to as the “Notice”).

The comments received are presented in four parts: Part I includes comments on the overall approach, Part II includes comments on the content of the core part of the Proposed Notice, Part III includes comments on the content of the substance-specific part of the Proposed Notice, and Part IV includes comments on the schedules. The comments are further organized by issues, according to their nature and to the part of the Proposed Notice to which the comments are related.

All comments received were taken into account and, where appropriate, modifications have been reflected in the P2 Planning Notice published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 9, 2012.

Comments and Responses Presented by Issue:

Part I: Comments on Overall Approach

Issue: Instrument Choice: Pollution Prevention (P2) Planning Notice

Comment:

A P2 Planning Notice is the most appropriate regulatory instrument to address industrial emissions of isoprene.

It is appropriate that the P2 Planning Notice does not apply to manufacturers of products or products containing isoprene, as there is no unacceptable risk identified for those applications.

Response:

Environment Canada and Health Canada agree that this P2 Planning Notice is an appropriate regulatory instrument.

In the final Screening Assessment Report isoprene was identified to not pose a concern from consumer products as exposure associated to this source is low to negligible. Therefore, no action was considered necessary to address releases from consumer products. 

 

Comment:

We do not support the requirement that facilities develop a P2 Plan to manage emissions on isoprene. Imposing requirements on industry when it is a minor source of emissions is inconsistent with the policy that we understand underpins the Chemicals Management Plan of taking a practical approach of managing the risks that matter.

The risk assessment states that isoprene is emitted into the environment from both natural and anthropogenic sources, and the principal route of exposure for the general population will likely be through inhalation of ambient and indoor air. Moreover, the risk assessment clearly points to the management of indoor air as the risk management issue that needs to be addressed from a scientific perspective.

Implementing the measures proposed in the P2 Planning Notice will not make a meaningful difference in managing risk associated with isoprene emission releases overall. Industry emissions are not meaningful in the context of the risk to be managed, and industry is reducing those emissions without government intervention.

The government seems to be developing an approach for toxic substances under CEPA such that when a typical regulation under Section 93 is not needed for industry emissions because they are not significant and are being managed in any case, that it will impose a P2 Plan instead. While this is generally a more flexible, efficient and preferable form of regulation in such circumstances than acting under Section 93 would be, the P2 Plan requirements do, nevertheless, impose costs and red tape on industry. These requirements should not be imposed unless there is a clear need – which we do not believe is the case here.

Response:

Environment Canada and Health Canada’s approach to the management of non-threshold genotoxic substances which have both natural and anthropogenic sources is that anthropogenic sources are additive and avoidable, and, therefore, the approach is to reduce exposure from man-made sources to the extent practicable. The synthetic rubber manufacturing sector is the main industrial contributor to ambient air levels of isoprene in Canada from anthropogenic sources. It is expected that concentrations of isoprene near rubber manufacturing facilities are higher than in ambient air. It is also expected that implementation of this initiative will result in much lower isoprene emission from these facilities.

Considering these facts, the risk management objective and substance-specific factors to consider when preparing the plan aim at reducing emissions of isoprene to air from industries within the synthetic rubber manufacturing sector and therefore reduce associated risks.

Results from the Instrument Choice Framework process indicated a P2 Planning Notice as the most cost-effective and appropriate risk management instrument to address the risks posed by the releases of isoprene to the environment from synthetic rubber manufacturing facilities; these risks are outlined in the final Screening Assessment Report.

Environment Canada minimized the reporting burden associated with this notice. For instance, the requirement to prepare and submit two Interim Progress Reports has been deleted from the final Notice to minimize extraneous data collection and reporting.

 

Comment:

It is very positive that, for any modification or the proposed addition of a new substance or any other amendments to a “generic” risk management instruments like this Notice, the government is committed to having a separated consultation process and a pre-publication of the proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette.

Response:

Environment Canada and Health Canada are combining efforts to develop multi-substance risk management instruments, where appropriate, to achieve the goals of the Chemicals Management Plan in a more efficient way.

Any addition of substances to the substance-specific sections of this sector-based P2 Planning Notice or other changes made to the Notice will be considered an amendment to the Notice. Any amendments will follow a similar consultation process and require pre-publication of the proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, followed by a 60-day public comment period prior to its final publication in the Canada Gazette. Explanation as to why a substance is considered for addition to any existing P2 Planning Notice will be given at this time.

 

Comment:

In any regulatory instrument, it is important that the action be taken with a Sustainable Development Objective – meeting societal demands for substances, ensuring economics remain viable, and that there are real and tangible improvements to the environment and human health.

Response:

In developing regulatory instruments, Environment Canada and Health Canada’s goal is to avoid, to the extent possible, negative impacts on the Canadian economy while assuring the protection of the environment and human health.

 

Issue: Scope of Pollution Prevention Planning Notice

Comment:

The scope and details of the Proposed Notice are not considered sufficiently prescriptive for facilities to adopt and implement pollution prevention strategies in their P2 Plans.

Response:

P2 Planning Notices promote and support innovation. Persons subject to a P2 Planning Notice have the flexibility to develop a P2 plan that is suitable for their facility, as long as it meets the requirements set out in the Notice. Additional information and guidance on preparing P2 Plans may be obtained from the Pollution Prevention and Pollution Prevention Planning section of Environment Canada’s Web site.

 

Issue: Reduction and elimination targets expected from requiring pollution prevention plans

Comment:

The expected reduction in isoprene releases to the environment in this proposed notice remains uncertain. It is our view that establishing levels of reduction or elimination of isoprene is essential to the effectiveness of P2 Plans. We urge the government to outline a reduction target of 75% of isoprene releases to the environment within two years, with further reductions and the ultimate goal of elimination.

Response:

Based on the risks identified in the final Screening Assessment Report for isoprene, the risk management objective aims at reducing industrial emissions of isoprene to air from synthetic rubber manufacturing sector and not at the elimination of industrial uses or releases of isoprene.

Environment Canada and Health Canada have reviewed and modified the risk management objective for isoprene for the final Notice.

The new risk management objective requires industrial facilities to reduce emissions of isoprene by 80% relative to their 2009 baseline emissions, by the year 2016, using best available techniques economically achievable (BATEA).

Top of Page

Part II: Comments on the Core Part of the Notice

Issue: Title of the Pollution Prevention Planning Notice and definition of the sector

Comment:

The title of the proposed P2 Planning Notice is unclear. The term “resin” has a broad meaning and will confuse industrial stakeholders. To avoid confusion, it is recommended to narrow the scope and applicability of the P2 Planning Notice and use a title that reflects clearly the substance and sector of focus of the P2 Planning Notice based on the risks identified in the risk assessment. This could be achieved by deleting the term “resin” from the title of the Notice. If another substance is added to the Notice, a separate regulatory process would be undertaken and at that time the representation of the sector and title could be altered, if necessary.

Alternatively, it is suggested to include in the Notice a clear definition for “resins” and the applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the sectors impacted so that it is explicit which industries are subject to the requirements of the Notice.

Response:

Environment Canada and Health Canada are combining efforts to develop multi-substance risk management instruments, where appropriate, to achieve the goals of the Chemicals Management Plan in a more efficient way.                                            

The sector that is the focus of the Notice and the title of the Notice were modified to reflect the risks identified in the final Screening Assessment Report for isoprene, such that the Notice now addresses the “synthetic rubber manufacturing sector”.

A definition for this sector has been included in the Notice. This definition is based on the general definition of the NAICS Code 32521 for the resin and synthetic rubber manufacturing, which is widely known, accepted and used by Canadian industries within that sector.

 

Issue: Normal operating conditions

Comment:

In the definition for “Normal operating conditions”, the phrase “highest level of emission” is used. This inappropriately assumes that normal operating conditions are associated with the highest or worst emissions. It should be recognized that normal operating conditions, as outlined by good engineering design and practices, may not and probably would not result in the highest or worst emissions.

Environment Canada should review the definition, and provide a definition that reflects the reality.

Response:

According to the definition given in section 1 of the proposed and final notice, “Normal operating conditions” means the range of operating conditions under which the facility expects to operate and that result in the highest level of emissions.”

In this definition, “highest levels of emissions” refer to the corresponding levels of emissions that the facility would have when it operates under representative conditions for the manufacturing of synthetic rubber. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction do not constitute representative conditions for the purposes of an emission test.

 

Issue: Persons subject to the Notice

Comment:

In subsection 2(1)(a) of the proposed Notice the listing of “use” is redundant and should be removed: if a person manufactures any of the synthetic rubbers from isoprene, then the facility is automatically involved in the use of isoprene as a raw material, and therefore, “use” does not have to be specified.

Response:

This is a substance-amendable P2 Planning Notice. The text to define persons subject to the Notice is meant to be broad enough to include activities (purchase, import, or use) related to the sector for substances that may be added to the Notice in the future.

 

Issue: Period to implement the plan

Comment:

The timeframe for implementing the P2 Plans should be reduced from the proposed 48 months to 24 months.

Response:

Based on the risks identified for anthropogenic sources of isoprene in the screening assessment, Environment Canada and Health Canada believe that a 48-month period to implement P2 plans is a reasonable timeframe for facilities to assess their emissions and to determine, validate and implement best available techniques required to achieve the 80% reduction of emissions of isoprene relative to their 2009 baseline emissions.

While the Notice allows up to 48 months for implementing a P2 plan, a facility may elect to implement its P2 plan before the deadline specified in the Notice.

 

Issue: Confidential business information

Comment:

Public release of facility sensitive information and data is a concern to the security arms of government and companies.

In any documentation required for or supporting a P2 plan, confidential business information should be protected. Schedules should be completed without divulging confidential information.

Response:

Information submitted under the P2 Planning Notice is generally made available to the public through Environment Canada’s P2 Planning website. However, under CEPA 1999, any person who provides such information may submit a written request that specific information be treated as confidential. Such written requests must accompany the document being submitted and must clearly indicate the part(s) of the document to which the request applies.

Information for which confidentiality has been requested will be treated as confidential by the Minister of the Environment pursuant to section 314 of CEPA 1999. However, the Minister may disclose information in some instances pursuant to sections 315 to 321 of CEPA 1999 and section 20 of the Access to Information Act.

 

Issue: Information to be submitted in declarations and reports

Comment:

Unnecessary data collection should not be required in the P2 Planning Notice. For instance, if emissions are the issue of concern, then it is not necessary to require production data. Any reporting required under the Notice should address the risks identified that caused the pollution prevention plan and not be extended into extraneous reporting.

Response:

Environment Canada asks persons subject to the Notice to submit certain data that is considered necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the P2 Planning Notice at meeting its objectives, including the Risk Management Objective.

There are no requirements in the Notice to report production data.

The requirement to prepare and submit two Interim Progress Reports has been deleted from the final Notice to minimize extraneous data collection and reporting.

 

Issue: Compliance with the Notice

Comment:

If a facility is already meeting the Environmental or Health Objectives, independently of whether or not the facility has already prepared a P2 Plan, it is questioned why the P2 Planning Notice would apply. All P2 Planning Notice should include a mechanism for facilities to provide evidence that they are already meeting the Risk Management Objective, and then allow them to be exempted from the requirements of the P2 Planning Notice –before the requirements of the Notice are invoked in the first place.

Response:

Environment Canada and Health Canada have reviewed and modified the risk management objective for isoprene for the final Notice. The objective is now to reduce emissions of isoprene by 80% from a Base Year using BATEA. For facilities subject to the Notice on the date of its publication in the Canada Gazette, the Base Year is 2009. For facilities becoming subject to the Notice at a later date, the Base Year will be the replaced by the Preparation Year.

Those subject to the Notice who already have a P2 Plan in place or have prepared or implemented a plan in respect of pollution prevention on a voluntary basis, for another government, or under another Act of Parliament, must evaluate the current plan to determine if it meets all the requirements of the Notice. If the plan does meet all the requirements of the Notice, it is not necessary to prepare a new plan. However, the information required under the Notice (i.e. schedules) will still need to be filed as usual. If the current plan does not meet all the requirements of the Notice, it can be amended or a new P2 Plan can be prepared to meet the requirements of the Notice. These provisions are set out in section 57 of CEPA 1999.

 

Comment:

No plan should be evergreen. For a person or facility, it is equally important to know when they are subject to the P2 Planning Notice and when they are no longer involved with the P2 Planning Notice. If a facility shuts down or changes processes or products, the requirements of the Notice will no longer apply. Further, if the facility eliminates or reduces the use of isoprene below 100 kg/year, the conditions to be subject to the Notice are no longer met.

It is recommended that a part be inserted in the Notice establishing the conditions under which a person or facility may drop out of the requirements. We suggest that a schedule to remove a facility from the P2 Planning Notice be developed for facilities to complete as the plan is successfully completed and implemented, or if conditions change before the Plan is completed so the Notice is no longer applicable to a facility. This would be a great incentive for a facility.

Response:

Persons subject to the Notice are required to prepare and implement a plan and submit the required reporting Schedules (i.e. Declaration of Preparation and Declaration of Implementation).

Once a facility has successfully completed and implemented their plan, a Declaration of Implementation should be submitted. In the event that a facility subject to the Notice fully implements their plan early due to any reason, a Declaration of Implementation can be submitted before the deadline to implement the plan (within 48 months).

For further information on reporting requirements under P2 Planning Notices, facilities may wish to consult the Pollution Prevention Planning section of Environment Canada’s Web site.

 

Issue: Accountable person for the Notice

Comment:

Subsection 2(1)(a) of the proposed Notice identifies those who “owns or operates a facility” as being subject to the Notice when within the applicable sector. The owner and operator can be different persons and as such it should be clear in the Notice which has responsibility for compliance with the Notice. It is suggested the person in operational control be expected to be responsible and accountable for compliance with the Notice.

Response:

The Notice acknowledges that the owner or operator of a facility may be accountable, depending upon the situation, and therefore provides flexibility as to who can report under the Notice.

Top of Page

Part III: Comments on the Substance-specific Part of the Proposed Notice

Issue: Activities for which the plan is to be prepared

Comment:

Activities listed in column 5 of the Table in section 3 are questioned. Activities for which the P2 Plan is to be prepared should only be those where risk assessment has clearly identified specific issues or concerns. Further, regulatory instruments should not speculate or list activities to catch speculative situations.

Concerns are raised with the following activities:

1) The sixth entry, “any other type of synthetic rubber” is vague and a catch-all phrase that is inappropriate.

2) The seventh entry, “Any other activity within the resin and synthetic rubber manufacturing sector that involves the use of isoprene” is also a catch-all phrase that has not valid purpose or scientific foundation. We suggest that this activity either be deleted or that the following text be added to the end of this clause “and where the risk assessment has clearly identified specific issues and concerns”.

3) All the entries contain a reference to isoprene in storage tanks. This is redundant because they mention isoprene itself and the P2 Planning Notice is for isoprene, and the fact that storage in tanks is an integral part of manufacturing and is not necessary to specify.

It is recommended Environment Canada review this list of activities for clarity, intended purpose, and regulatory process.

Response:

The list of activities for which the plan is to be prepared was initially taken from a study on the sector prepared by “Environmental Consulting and Research Incorporated” for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Emission Standards Division. “Storage in tanks” was added for greater certainty.

The list of activities for which the plan is to be prepared was revised to cover only the sector and substance of concern for the Notice, in this case, “the synthetic rubber manufacturing sector” and “isoprene”.

P2 Planning Notices provide the flexibility to each facility to determine what BATEA means for their plan and allow for environmental protection innovation. Facilities have the capability and responsibility to identify “any other manufacturing activities within the synthetic rubber manufacturing sector that involves the use of isoprene” that require specific actions to manage the corresponding isoprene emissions.

 

Issue: Purchase, import, or use threshold

Comment:

We urge the government to remove the proposed substance purchase, import or use threshold for preparing a P2 planof 100 kg/year. All facilities in the sector should be required to prepare and implement P2 Plans that explicitly aim at reducing the levels of purchase, import, or use of isoprene.

Response:

100 kg/year was chosen as the purchase, import, or use threshold to exclude any use of isoprene for the purpose of laboratory analysis or research as well as to target the most significant industrial purchasers, importers, or users of isoprene.

It is unlikely that any industrial applications would use less than 100 kg/year of isoprene.

The P2 Planning Notice aims at reducing emissions of isoprene to air from industries within the synthetic rubber manufacturing sector by using BATEA, not at the elimination of industrial uses of isoprene.

 

Issue: Concentration threshold for isoprene

Comment:

Several comments were received on the use of a concentration threshold of 10 μg/m3 for isoprene:

  • We do not support the use of concentration levels to achieve the necessary reduction in levels of isoprene emissions to the environment as it is not prescriptive. To create meaningful reductions, the emission levels of isoprene to the environment should be reduced over time.
  • The use of the concentration threshold of 10 μg/m3 for isoprene at or beyond the facility boundaries is questioned. Is it appropriate versus the identified risk, and is it appropriate to hold industry stakeholders to an ambient concentration? In the isoprene risk assessment, the value used to calculate the risk quotients or margins was 11 mg/m3. Using a safety factor of 10, the boundary threshold could be 1 mg/m3. Environment Canada is strongly urged to review the threshold value for the P2 Planning Notice.
  • We have significant concerns about the 10 μg/m3 threshold that will act as a trigger for the requirement to prepare the P2 Plan. The trigger to require the P2 Plan should be a toxicological effects threshold. Unless there is an effect, no P2 Plan or other form of risk management should be required. If the P2 Plan requirement is to be imposed, Environment Canada should identify a toxicological effect threshold and that should be used as the trigger. Also, per Health Canada’s non-threshold policy, no toxicological effect threshold has been identified in the risk assessment document. The Health Canada non-threshold risk assessment policy is a very inappropriate and impractical basis upon which to build a risk management strategy. We urge Environment Canada to make this point to Health Canada. Further, using a threshold based on background levels of isoprene in ambient air is inappropriate as it implies that facilities should not emit contaminants above ambient background levels. Mitigation to background levels is typically not technologically feasible, and would be very expensive.
  • We are uncomfortable with the use of the 10 μg/m3 threshold value –both the number and the approach. Even though the included footnote indicates that this is not a toxicological effects threshold, we fear that this number will be misused by others as the basis for unfounded concerns. This approach implies that facilities should not emit contaminants above background levels. Mitigation to ambient levels is typically not technologically feasible, and the need to do so is often not supported by science. We question whether a threshold value is really needed for this Notice, given that there are only two companies reporting isoprene in the National Pollutant Release Inventory but only one is captured as a synthetic rubber manufacturer. If the final Notice absolutely must include a threshold value, our preference would be for it to be mass-based.

Response:

The risk management objective of the P2 Planning Notice has been revised. Instead of setting a threshold concentration in ambient air, the Notice will now require industrial facilities to reduce emissions of isoprene by 80% relative to their 2009 baseline emissions, by the year 2016. 

The final screening assessment concluded that isoprene be considered as a substance that may be entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health, based not only on potentially inadequate margins of exposure for non-cancer effects, but also on the basis of the carcinogenicity of isoprene, for which there may be a probability of harm at any level of exposure.

In order to be protective of human health, the overall risk management objective in the Risk Management Approach is based on the most sensitive endpoint (carcinogenesis), rather than less sensitive non-cancer endpoint(s).

 

Issue: Best Available Techniques Economically Achievable

Comment:

It is questioned why the number of employees is an element in the definition of Best Available Techniques Economically Achievable (BATEA), as the pure number of employees is independent of both techniques and technology.

Response:

The number of employees reflects the size of a company and can be an indication of the potential for the company to invest in certain pollution control technologies or pollution prevention techniques.

 

Comment:

The design, construction, lay-out, and maintenance of equipment should be recognized as an element of BATEA. Therefore, it is suggested that the last sentence of the definition of BATEA ends with: “… plant, buildings, and equipment.”

Response:

The definition of BATEA provided in the Notice already recognizes equipment as the word “techniques” includes both the facility equipment used in the process and how the process is operated.

P2 Planning Notices provide the flexibility to each facility to determine what BATEA means for their Plan.

 

Comment:

It is suggested that this P2 Planning Notice recognizes the decisions from other Government of Canada’s P2 Planning Notices and indicate that the owners/operators of facilities, based on their knowledge, expertise, and economics, will have the flexibility for defining, developing, and implementing the BATEA most applicable to their facility. Government should not specify BATEA.

Response:

BATEA is defined in the Notice but P2 Planning Notices provide the flexibility to each facility to determine what BATEA means for their Plan and facility.

 

Issue: Substance-specific factors to be considered when preparing the plan

Comment:

The factors 4(c)(i) through 4(c)(iv) and 4(e) and 4(f) of the proposed Notice include a large number of documents to consider when developing a P2 plan. This could be a considerable workload or burden, especially for small to medium enterprises which may not be able to afford such an analysis. Therefore, the Notice should state clearly that persons subject to the Notice need only to consider the listed sources that are appropriate or applicable to them. In addition, the Notice should state that these documents are not absolute: for instance, if a more effective approach, sampling or analysis method, or BATEA exists, it may be used in place of the ones listed in the Notice.

Further, are these documents up to date and available to all stakeholders from the public domain? Is there a mechanism to delete them if the status changes, once the Notice becomes final? Since a number of these are extra-territorial documents, is it proper to establish them as requirements in a Canadian regulatory instrument? Would a review by the Joint Senate Committee on Regulatory Scrutiny or the Auditor General concur this is appropriate?

Response:

P2 Planning Notices do not prescribe the content of the P2 plan nor technologies that must be used to meet the requirements of the Notice. Each Notice lists the “factors to be considered” for the preparation of a P2 plan. These are the issues or activities that must be addressed in preparing the P2 plan. They may include current P2 practices and available technologies. A description of how the specified factors were addressed when preparing the P2 plan is required in the declarations. However, if persons subject to the Notice identify better alternatives, practices or technologies, they will be able to specify the alternative approach used and explain why it is more suitable for their facility in their description of how they considered that factor. P2 Planning Notices allow for this flexibility and environmental protection innovation.

Section 16 of the P2 Planning Notice “Application for waiver of factors to consider” presents information on the option to request a waiver and points at Schedule 2 as the written report that must be submitted by facilities that wish to request a waiver of a factor to consider when preparing a plan.

All the documents referenced in the Notice are industry accepted standards and are available to all stakeholders from the public domain. Environment Canada will ensure that these documents remain available.

 

Issue: Stack testing and AERMOD model requirements

Comment:

The requirement to sample air releases from stacks once a year is inadequate, particularly for the purpose of determining a 24-hour maximum concentration level. Once a year sampling will not provide the necessary dataset required for a meaningful comparison of concentration levels, as they vary with the annual seasons and annual fluctuations in production activities, and may vary significantly within a period of a month or a 24-hour cycle.

We urge the government to expand and enhance the sampling regime for isoprene in the proposed P2 Planning Notice. The sampling regime should include provisions that would reflect variations in productions levels, as well as the need to increase sampling to reflect seasonal changes.

The sampling regime should also include provisions to increase stack sampling in events where concentration levels are exceeded. Also, given that the Proposed Notice requires sampling to be undertaken under normal operations, the P2 Planning Notice should articulate in detail what would constitute “normal operating conditions” and what would be considered outside of these conditions.

Response:

The Notice will require industrial facilities to consider the following elements:

  • The requirement to conduct stack testing once a year was revised, and now it is required that facilities consider to do stack testing once before and once after putting into practice the BATEA, but before the deadline to implement the plan.
  • The sampling and analysis of air released from stacks should be done under normal operating conditions related to the use of isoprene for the manufacture of synthetic rubber. Such operating conditions are the representative conditions of the synthetic rubber manufacturing process under which the facility expects to operate on a regular basis and that would result in the highest level of emissions, as defined in the Notice. For the purpose of an emission test, normal operating conditions do not include operations during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.
  • The sampling and analysis of the samples should be performed by a laboratory accredited under the International Organization for Standardization ISO/IEC 17025 standard.

 

Comment:

1) An annual stack sampling requirement is unnecessary. That would be a waste of money and resources. It should only be considered initially when characterizing a process, and again when changes are made in the operation or the process that could significantly impact emissions.

2) The burden of AERMOD –which is beyond the capability of most facilities– and the requirements for annual stack testing is questioned. Alternative approaches are readily available and should be considered.

Response:

The frequency of sampling and measurement of isoprene emissions to air from the stacks, as well as other measurements or estimations of emissions of isoprene to air from storage tanks, fugitive emissions, and wastewater processes was changed from once every year for four consecutive years to once before and once after putting into practice the BATEA, but before the deadline to implement the plan.

Similarly, the risk management objective of the Notice for isoprene was changed to incorporate a reduction target in the industrial emissions of isoprene of 80% relative to the Base Year of 2009. As a result, the requirement to determine the maximum 24-hour average concentration of isoprene at or beyond the facility fence line using AERMOD was also deleted from the Notice, since this information is not needed to measure the performance of the instrument in meeting the new risk management objective.

Top of Page

Part IV: Comments on the Schedules of the Proposed Notice

Comment:

It is recommended that a question asking if the facility is already participating in an Environmental Management System, with recognition to the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada’s Responsible Care program, be added to the schedules of the Notice. If a facility is member in good standing of Responsible Care, Environment Canada should identify what reductions in burden are possible from the P2 plan.

Response:

Those subject to a Notice who already have a P2 plan or environmental management system in place should evaluate the current plan or system to determine if it meets all the requirements set out in the Notice. If what they already have in place meets all the requirements of the Notice, it is not necessary to prepare a new plan; however, the required information (Schedules 1, 4 (if necessary), and 5 of the Notice) still needs to be filed. Part 2.0 of Schedule 1 allows facilities to identify whether or not plans prepared or implemented for another purpose are used in part or whole to fulfill the obligations of the Notice.

If an existing plan or system doesn't meet all the requirements of the Notice, it can be amended or an additional P2 plan that covers the remainder of the requirements of the Notice can be prepared. These provisions are set out in section 57 of CEPA 1999.

 

Comment:

In Parts 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of Schedules 1, 4 and 5, the facility is asked to identify what type of treatment the “off-site transfer of the substance for disposal” and the “off-site transfer of the substance for recycling” will be subject to by the external waste handling company. It is suggested this be written in the context of "if known’’ by the facility, as done in part 4.4.1 of these schedules.

Additionally, the list of treatments that may be identified is a closed list. As different options inevitably exist, it is suggested an “Other, please specify” be included in the list of treatment options.

Response:

After further revisions, data requirements for “Off-site Transfers” of the substance for distribution, disposal, or recycling outlined in Parts 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of the Schedules 1 and 5 for isoprene were deleted from the Notice as information requested did not contribute to measuring the performance of the instrument in meeting the new risk management objective.

 

Comment:

In Schedules 1, 4, and 5, Part 4.5.1, facilities are asked what their annual operation time is, in hours. Why is this data necessary? How is it related to air emissions, and how is it relevant to the Plan? It is recommended this question be deleted.

Further, in identifying the context of how a facility is operated, the phrase “grades or products” is used. The use of “grades” is not understood; clarification of this terminology is suggested.

Response:

Annual operation time is useful information to help understand the extent to which Canadians living around the surrounding of facilities are exposed to emissions of isoprene in a year.

“Grade” refers to a specific product manufactured in a facility. Grades can vary based on numerous factors, such as, but not limited to, physical or chemical properties, quality, customer specifications, raw materials or manufacturing processes used.

 

Comment:

It is recommended to delete from part 4.5.1 of the schedules 1, 4, and 5 the requirement to report on accidental or non-routine releases such as spills. In this Notice, air emissions are the concern and as such only reflect "normal conditions of operation". Besides, the Notice itself does not require consideration of accidental or non-routine conditions, so it is inappropriate for the report form itself to introduce any new requirements.

Response:

Spills of isoprene could lead to considerable releases of isoprene to air and consequently they need to be included in the estimation of the emissions of isoprene. Text was added to the proposed Notice and final Notice (Factor to consider 4(1)(d)(i)) to include accidental or non-routine spills as a factor to consider when preparing the plan.

The Notice does not include a requirement to estimate releases from spills, but it includes a requirement for persons subject to the Notice to consider using BATEA for spill prevention measures.

Facilities subject to the P2 Planning Notice could use spill prevention measures developed to comply with existing Environmental Emergency (E2) Regulations as part of their response to address this factor to consider.

 

Comment:

Given that the objective of the P2 plan is to improve and reduce health and environmental risk by reducing exposures or emissions, it is recommended that facilities report on the Environmental Objective (or the Health Objective) in addition to reporting on the Risk Management Objective in Part 7.0 of the Schedules 1, 4 and 5. It is suggested to include in these schedules a Part 7a to report on the Risk Management Objective, a Part 7b to report on the Environmental Objective, and a Part 7c to report on the Health Objective.

Response:

The Risk Management Approach for isoprene states that the proposed human health objective is to minimize exposure to isoprene and hence the risk to human health associated with this substance to the extent practicable. The specific risk management objective for the rubber manufacturing sector in the Risk Management Approach is to minimize human exposure in the vicinity of a facility using isoprene as a feedstock by controlling or reducing isoprene air stack releases by the application of BATEA. Therefore, the risk management objective for isoprene in the Notice addresses this human health objective by requiring reduction of industrial emissions of isoprene to the environment.

Facilities subject to the P2 Planning Notice are required to describe in the reporting schedule 5 how they have met the risk management objective for isoprene as specified in the Table in the Notice.

[1] CAS RN: Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number is the property of the American Chemical Society and any use or redistribution, except as required in supporting regulatory requirements and/or for reports to the Government when the information and the reports are required by law or administrative policy, is not permitted without the prior, written permission of the American Chemical Society.