BUILDING A GREEN ONTARIO THROUGH TOXICS REDUCTION

July 23, 2008 Memorandum to Environment Minister John Gerretsen from the Toxics Reduction Scientific Expert Panel

Memorandum

To: The Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of the Environment
From: Toxics Reduction Scientific Expert Panel
Re: Advice Regarding Ontario’s Toxics Reduction Strategy
Date: July 23, 2008

Introduction

The Toxics Reduction Scientific Expert Panel (“the Panel”) has conducted an analysis of a proposed Toxics Reduction Strategy (“TRS”) for Ontario.  The Panel has considered information from Ministry staff and other jurisdictions, notably Massachusetts, and other experts on the subject.  The following memo conveys the Panel’s recommendations on the guiding principles and components of a TRS for the Province. 

Key Components in Ontario’s Toxics Reduction Strategy

With respect to the key components of Ontario’s Toxics Reduction Strategy, the Panel commends the Ministry’s dedicated staff for its rigorous research and analysis in this area, and generally supports the measures as laid out in the draft discussion paper of Friday July 11, 2008.  The Panel sees the introduction of the strategy as an excellent opportunity to move Ontario towards a “green economy” through technological innovation and growing our knowledge economy.  The TRS should encourage substitution of toxic substances and the implementation of innovative processes and control technologies in order to reduce toxic emissions in Ontario. The Panel strongly supports efforts towards better protecting all Ontarians by reducing toxic emissions and other exposures to toxins in Ontario, including those originating from products.

The Panel believes that the proposed TRS strategy will help Ontario achieve important improvements in public health, a cleaner environment, and healthier workplaces, help foster innovation in Ontario’s economy using cleaner production methods, and help Ontario save money through reduced toxic chemical use, management and disposal.  To ensure the success of the Strategy, the Panel strongly urges the Ministry to engage early with industry and other stakeholders to ensure the success of the proposed TRS.

The Panel supports the three “pillars” in the Ministry’s proposed approach to toxics reduction i) Legislation ii) Building Capacity and iii) Informing Ontarians.  Taking each component in turn, the Panel’s views are as follows:

i) Legislation 

The Panel supports the development of pollution prevention legislation similar in principle to the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act and the proposed Act for a Healthy Massachusetts: Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals.  In particular, Ontario’s pollution prevention legislation should:

• Include clear, viable, and progressive goals (i.e. a percentage reduction in toxics use and release in the Province within a specified period of time); the statute should include renewable toxics reduction targets, and a mechanism for monitoring and public reporting on achievement of those targets. The Panel notes that goals are not set in the current discussion paper and therefore strongly encourages the addition of goals to the discussion paper and program.
• Apply to all sectors that meet the legislative thresholds (such as energy and waste management, in addition to manufacturing, and mining and mineral processing).
• Provide for mandatory cleaner production planning with voluntary implementation for facilities in all sectors.
• Broaden the scope of cleaner production planning to capitalize on co-benefits such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air contaminants and water and energy use taking into account life cycle thinking and innovations such as green chemistry.
• Establish a well-resourced, arms-length agency and/or academic-affiliated institute to: assess alternatives; support regulated firms with training, planning, compliance and their development of innovative processes; provide public information and a neutral forum for constructive dialogue among the public, industry and government; and provide consistency across political mandates. The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute is an appropriate model.
• Apply on a phased in basis to successive lists of chemicals in order to ensure the ongoing success of the Strategy.
• Include the legislative authority to obtain information on the chemicals in commerce in Ontario (produced, imported, used, incorporated in products, etc.).

ii) Capacity Building

The introduction of a comprehensive toxics reduction strategy provides an opportunity to make Ontario businesses more competitive domestically and globally.  As part of its TRS, Ontario should strive to make itself a world leader in cleaner production, environmental innovation, and the environmental knowledge economy.  In support of these goals, the Province should:

• Provide financial and technical support for businesses to move towards safer chemicals and safer practices and processes in all sectors (including agriculture and forestry, and small scale operations).
• Publicly reward companies who take the lead in innovating in the areas of cleaner production and green chemistry.
• Establish a well-resourced, collaborative, arms-length agency and/or academic-affiliated institute to lead innovation and knowledge dissemination, as described above.
• Provide adequate funding for green chemistry initiatives that can go from scientific and engineering discoveries to commercial application within the dedicated academic institution described above and in universities and other groups throughout the Province.
• Undertake a rigorous exercise to determine the chemicals in commerce in Ontario (produced, imported, used, incorporated in products, etc.).

iii) Informing Ontarians

The Panel agrees that Ontario’s toxics reduction strategy should include programs to support Ontarians in acquiring timely, accurate, and accessible information concerning toxic substances in their environment (including products).  Accordingly, the Province of Ontario should:

• Support public outreach and information that is transparent and precautionary.
• Annually collect and disclose to the public, information from all sectors and facilities regarding their use and release of “listed” toxic substances in Ontario.  This includes material accounting information.
• Provide adequate resources and support to encourage collaboration between the academic institute described in i) and ii) above, public health institutions, and health professionals’ organizations to ensure the most beneficial synthesis, translation and timely dissemination of clear and consistent toxics information for the public.
• Facilitate cooperation among the MOE, the Public Health Division of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, the Ministry of Health Promotion, the Ministry of Labour, Health Canada and local Boards of Health to enhance surveillance of toxic chemical-associated illness and to ensure the public is aware of environmental toxins and policies related to reducing their exposures.
• Consider developing a single portal to cleaner production information for the public where this information could include the chemical composition of products and annual data on the use of “listed” chemicals.

Tiered Toxics Reduction Chemical List

The Panel notes that tiered lists of chemicals can serve several purposes in addition to providing a focus to set initial priorities for a toxics reduction regime; for example, increasing business and public awareness, guiding chemical substitution choices, life cycle management, tracking chemicals, and evaluating program performance.

With respect to the group of chemicals subjected to mandatory materials accounting and pollution prevention planning, the Panel recommended that this list initially be composed of the following substances, screened for those in use and/or reasonably expected to be emitted in Ontario: 

• Chemicals listed on the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) including Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Particulate Matter <2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5);
• Chemicals listed on Ontario Regulation 127;
• Carcinogens as defined by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), categories 1, 2A, and 2B; the National Toxicology Program (United States’ Department of Health and Human Services) (NTP) list of probable and reasonably anticipated carcinogens; the Cancer and the Environment Stakeholder Group’s “Cancer and the Environment in Ontario: Gap Analysis on the Reduction of Environmental Carcinogens” (July, 2007);
• Chemicals listed on the Great Lakes Air Emissions Inventory; and
• Reproductive and developmental toxins (as defined by California Proposition 65 and using Health Canada’s work during the domestic substances categorization process).

The Ministry staff has identified substances on these lists and the overlaps among the lists. They have proposed a list from this initial group of chemicals for implementation of Phase I of the proposed legislation with subsequent phases adding more of these chemicals. The Panel understands that the intention of the Phase I list is to immediately regulate a small subset of chemicals of concern to the Province while allowing for a phased in roll-out of the program.  In particular, the Panel notes that the Phase I list is designed to capture a limited percentage of reporting facilities, in order to allow the Ministry and industry to develop effective compliance mechanisms before the larger list takes effect.  As a result, certain significant contaminants (notably VOCs and PM2.5) have been allocated to Phase II, since their inclusion in Phase I would result in the inclusion of most facilities in Ontario, thus precluding a graduated phase-in approach.  The Panel notes that given the significant health and environmental effects associated with a number of the substances included in the Phase II list, it is imperative that Phase II be initiated in a timely manner.  The Panel suggests that Phase II should take effect within approximately 2 to 4 years of Phase I.

With this clarification, the Panel supports the phasing process as proposed in the July 11, 2008 Consultation document.  The Panel further recognizes that the Province will need to consider multiple factors when arriving at the final composition of Phase I and Phase II lists.  With that proviso in mind, and given the limited time available to the Panel to assess the lists, the Panel recommends that the Province: Add the remainder of the NPRI chemicals not included in Phase I in Phase II (in a maximum of approximately 4 years). The Panel notes it will be particularly important for PM 2.5 and VOCs, as defined by the NPRI,  to be regulated in Phase II, as these are currently recognized as substances to which Ontarians are commonly exposed, and which commonly lead to individual and/or population health concerns.

• Set goals for a specific, viable percentage reduction in use and release of the Tiered Toxics Reduction Chemical List within a specified time period.
• Consider eliminating from Phase I some high volume, but relatively less toxic chemicals such as Aluminum and compounds, Copper and compounds, Methanol, Selenium and compounds, Vanadium and compounds, and Zinc and compounds, which could significantly add to reporting facilities’ challenges with relatively less toxics reduction impact.
• Develop (as soon as possible) a rigorous process for including “Non-NPRI Toxics” in the Tiered Toxics Reduction Chemical List.¹ “Non-NPRI” chemicals are proposed to be included for information-gathering to better inform whether they should be incorporated into the Ontario TRS. The Panel recommends that the Phase I priorities for “Non-NPRI Toxics” could be the listed halogenated hydrocarbons and chemicals designated as of high human health concern under the federal categorization of the Domestic Substances List. The Panel would move Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) to a later phase list.

The Panel recommends that the listing process be subject to updating including automatic updates tied to other policy and regulatory tools such as NPRI, CEPA assessment, NTP, IARC.  This automatic updating process should be written into the TRS legislation.   Attention should be given to the need for consistent benchmarks that will allow the Ministry to track performance when updating the list.  The updating process should involve consulting new information from other assessment exercises.²  This “living list” approach is necessary in order to accommodate advances in scientific knowledge in an efficient and timely manner.  This listing process would also benefit from increased analysis on use and emissions of these substances in Ontario.

Finally, on the issue of regulatory thresholds, the Panel notes that the current proposal incorporates the thresholds as set out in the NPRI.  Although NPRI is a well-known reporting mechanism, MOE emissions modeling and assessments indicates that there are numerous NPRI chemicals for which point source (reporting facilities) form only a small portion of total estimated provincial emissions.  Area estimates (from small and medium emitters based on densities of certain types of businesses in a regional area) in some cases form a high percentage of the emissions.  As a result, the panel recommends implementing pollution prevention obligations to facilities with lower thresholds than NPRI for certain substances.
 
In future the Ministry should consider adopting a comprehensive listing approach such as that proposed in the Massachusetts’ Act for a Healthy Massachusetts: Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals.  The important advantage of the comprehensive listing approach is that it offers industries vetted options for chemical substitution and providing Ontario with broad regulatory authority over all substances used in the Province. 

Conclusion

In summary, the Panel supports the direction undertaken by the Ministry towards developing Ontario’s Toxics Reduction Strategy.  In order to deliver on the Premier’s promise to increase health protection in the province and provide an economic stimulus to the “green economy”, we believe the strategy should include the measures outlined above.  The Panel recommends that the Province consider measures in addition to Toxics Reduction Strategy (regulating total loadings, consumer disclosure, “green” procurement, etc.). The Panel looks forward to continuing its work with Ministry staff on this very important project.