Help the Government of Canada organize its website!

Complete an anonymous 5-minute questionnaire. Start now.

Skip booklet index and go to page content

Toluene Diisocyanates – Responses to Comments

Part I: Comments on Overall Approach

Issue: Pollution prevention planning approach

Comment

Need of federal P2 Plan is questionable. If P2 is necessary, there should be guidance as to how much emissions must be reduced further, and a cap to dollar spent to emissions reduced ratio.

Response

Different instruments were considered. A P2 Plan is considered the most appropriate instrument for this sector and type of emissions. Factors to consider highlight expectations with regard to measures that can be put in place and expected emissions reductions.

Comment

Environment Canada is taking the correct approach on risk management related to TDI at this time, given available scientific and other relevant information.

P2 Plan is a preferable approach to regulations or release guidelines to manage TDI releases.

Response

Environment Canada and Health Canada appreciate the support of this approach.

Comment

In developing the P2 plan, prescribed targets for improvement or actions should be discouraged but an approach or format that encourages creativity should be the norm.

Response

P2 Planning Notices allow for environmental protection innovation because those persons subject to the Notice can develop a P2 plan in a manner that is suitable to their facility, provided that it meets all the requirements of the Notice.

The evaluation, by the Minister, of the effectiveness of the P2 Planning Notice with respect to the risk management objective will determine whether other measures, including regulations, are needed to further prevent or reduce negative impacts of the substances on Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999, on the environment and human health.

Comment

Any change in risk management approach from that proposed in the Risk Management Approach document should be made transparently. It is important that the "further information from industry" and the "technical study on TDI" be released so that the public can understand and assess the reasons for changing the risk management approach.Footnote 1

Response

The study was edited to remove any sensitive business information and distributed to interested stakeholders on April 15, 2010.

Issue: Scope of pollution prevention planning Notice

Comment

P2 Plan should be in alignment with other regulatory initiatives within Canada, should not conflict or create conditions opposite to policy objectives.

Response

Environment Canada strives to avoid conflict and assure consistency in the development of this proposed sector-based P2 Planning Notice.

Comment

Organization suggested that the scope of this P2 plan be narrowed to reduce the working groups and assure getting the work done right the first time, as this is one of the first P2 plans of the Chemical Management Plan.

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.

Comment

Multi-substances instruments are positive and supported: they are needed for CMP success, and if done properly, they reduce cost and streamline burden for stakeholders.

The addition of substance criteria for what constitutes a "relevant substance" should be subject to consultation. Criteria for relevancy could be established in advance or with the first version of a P2 plan – as a potential appendix to the plan.

Response

Only substances added to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 can be managed by a P2 Planning Notice.

Any addition of substances to the substance-specific section of this sector-based P2 Planning Notice or other changes made to the P2 Planning Notice will be considered an amendment to the P2 Planning Notice.

Any amendments to the P2 Planning Notice will follow a similar consultation process and require pre-publication of the proposed amendments in Canada Gazette, followed by a 60-day public comment period prior to final publication of the amended P2 Planning Notice in Canada Gazette.

Comments

1) Clarify whether the TDI set of declarations and reports will need to be reissued after the addition of new substances, or separated from the new substances, or whether each new substance will need an individual report. Further discussion and clarity is suggested for timing as well.

2) Suggest that a separate Notice be prepared for any new substances considered for development of a P2 Planning Notice instead of amending the P2 Planning Notice to add new substances. The requirements in the existing P2 Planning Notice may not be adaptable or applicable to new substances and addition of new substances will likely impact stakeholders beyond those involved in the existing Notice. Besides, amending a Notice may create more work/effort for Environment Canada than developing an entirely new Notice.Footnote 1

Response

The TDI set of declarations and reports will not need to be reissued after the addition of new substances to the P2 Planning Notice. A new set of schedules for each new substance added in the future to the P2 Planning Notice must be submitted by persons subject to the Notice.

The only case in which the schedules for TDI (or any other given substance addressed by the Notice) must be reissued and resubmitted is when the Notice is amended to add a new activity related to the sector and to the substance.

Issue: Regulatory instruments

Comment

Should not create artificial markets and/or conditions that favour alternative technologies.

Response

P2 Planning Notices do not prescribe the content of the plan nor technologies. P2 Planning Notices allow for environmental protection innovation.

Issue: Objective of pollution prevention planning Notice

Comment

It is positive that in the working document for the P2 plan there is no pre-determined target for reduction nor information indicating what improvement is required. The P2 plan should encourage the principle of reduction, not elimination.

Response

The risk management objective (RMO) for TDI is to reduce TDI releases to the environment to the greatest extent possible using best available techniques economically achievable.

Comments

1) For Environment Canada, it appears that as long as the approved plan has been implemented correctly, there is no need for long term follow-up beyond the termination date. However, newer better techniques could be established that may require a new P2 plan. The goal of Environment Canada should be to reduce toxic emissions to whatever is technically feasible no matter what the cost.Footnote 1

2) In the case of a plant expansion or increase in production, it seems the same pollution reduction techniques will apply. However, the reduction in totally emissions may no longer be adequate to prevent harm. In this case, Environment Canada should follow the industry over the long term and if warranted prevent expansion until better techniques are found.Footnote 1

Response

Environment Canada will undertake a periodic review of the risk management approach to determine if further reductions are necessary.

Issue: Consultation process

Comment

Environment Canada should have active ongoing individual consultations and share the final proposal before publication with those directly impacted.

Response

Consultations are a key element in the development of all risk management instruments. Consultations with stakeholders took place on the working document and draft proposed P2 Planning Notice for the Polyurethane and Other Foam Sector (excluding Polystyrene) with respect to TDI. The comments received were considered in the development of the Proposed P2 Planning Notice published in Canada Gazette, Part I on July 3, 2010, for a 60-day public comment period.  Comments received during the 60-day public comment period will be considered during the development of the Final Notice.

Comment

For a greater chance of success in the development of the risk management instrument, Environment Canada should go beyond paper consultations and encourage verbal dialogue and personal interaction with stakeholders.

Response

A face-to-face meeting with industry, NGOs, and interested stakeholders was held in Ottawa on March 22, 2010.

Comment

Results from consultation should be disclosed to participants.

Response

A report on the consultation session was distributed to participants. This Response to Comments received during consultations was published on P2 Planning section of Environment Canada's website.

Comment

Recommended that in the consultations Environment Canada shows how the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation and the criteria from the Treasury Board Assessing, Selecting and Implementing Instruments for Government Action were considered and incorporated in the selection and development of this P2 Plan.

Response

In accordance with Treasury Board requirements, the selection of the risk management instrument was completed using the Instrument Choice Framework (ICF).

Issue: Forms associated with pollution prevention planning Notice

Comment

Forms (schedules) were not presented for review. Forms can have many issues such as the level of detail required in methodology, confidential business information, or bias information included. Any plan should set reasonable minimum requirements and then allow the facility with local knowledge and expertise decide. It is recommended that the forms be constructed as neutral reporting documents, and be subject to consultations. Standardized forms should be used.

Response

As with all other P2 Planning Notices, templates for all the schedules have been used as a basis and tailored to meet the needs of this specific P2 Planning Notice. These reporting Schedules are considered part of the proposed P2 Planning Notice that is subject to a 60-day public comment period after its publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Issue: Comments on follow-up document

Comment

In this document it is not clear what is meant by "the sector".

Response

A definition of the sector has been included in the proposed P2 Planning Notice.

Comment

It is suggested that any new materials generated after final assessment that modified the direction of this risk management be made available to stakeholders, recognizing confidentiality constraints.

Response

The study requested by Environment Canada after the final assessment of TDI was disclosed to interested stakeholders after removing the parts that contain confidential business information.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Comment on draft Proposed P2 Planning Notice received from Consultation on TDI on March 22, 2010.

Return to first footnote 1 referrer