APERC Comments on the "Draft Consultation Meeting Report on the Risk Management Strategy for the Wet Processing Textile Industry Addressing Textile Mill Effluents and Nonylphenol and Its Ethoxylates Under CEPA 1999 (July 2002)"

The Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council (APERC) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the "Draft Consultation Meeting Report on the Risk Management Strategy for the Wet Processing Textile Industry Addressing Textile Mill Effluents and Nonylphenol and Its Ethoxylates Under CEPA 1999 (July 2002)." In a July 5 notice from Lucie Desforges, Environment Canada solicited corrections to the report from participants and noted that comments on the strategy should be sent by August 30. On July 24, Environment Canada circulated its "Consultation Meeting Report on the Risk Management of Products Containing Nonylphenol and its Ethoxylates" and further requested comments on the risk management objective and instrument by September 13.

The following comments are directed at corrections to the Textile Mill Effluents (TME) Consultation Report; more detailed comments on the proposed strategy for addressing TME will be submitted by August 30. Comments on the Products Containing Nonylphenol (NP) and its Ethoxylates (NPE) Consultation Report and the overall risk management strategy and instrument will be sent by the September 13 deadline.

I. The Draft Consultant Report Does Not Adequately Address the Risk Management Objectives

The draft Consultation Report for TME indicates that the CEPA risk management process is intended to reduce or eliminate the risks posed by substances that have been declared CEPA toxic. The NP/NPE Risk Assessment indicates "environmentally harmful concentrations of NPE occur in untreated or partially-treated industrial effluents, including textile mill effluents. Secondary- or tertiary-treated effluents generally have concentrations of NPEs below levels of environmental concern."¹ In addition, the Risk Management Strategy for Nonylphenols and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (page 7) states:

All risk management actions have the same environmental objective, which is to achieve ambient concentrations in Canadian waters that do not exceed the draft Canadian Water Quality Guidelines of 1.0 ug/L NP TEQ for freshwater and 0.7 ug/L TEQ for marine water, such that no adverse effects are likely to occur in the resident aquatic biota.

While there are questions about these precise numerical values, APERC supports an objective, which recognizes that acceptable environmental levels of these compounds can be defined and that achieving those levels is the overall goal of the risk management program. As Environment Canada has recognized, NP/NPE do not meet the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic criteria for "virtual elimination." Moreover, available research and monitoring data have demonstrated that effective chemicals management and wastewater treatment can achieve acceptable levels of NP/NPE in the environment.

However, in describing the means to achieve this objective, the draft Proposed Risk Management Strategy document recommends approaches that far exceed the controls necessary to achieve those numerical objectives. Instead of promoting a program aimed at reducing and maintaining acceptable environmental concentrations, the document recommends 100% substitution or a defacto ban on products containing NPE. Such an approach is inconsistent with Environment Canada's recognition that NPEs should be considered a "Track 2" substance and managed in accordance with a "life cycle management" program.

While it is recognized that alcohol ethoxylates as well as other surfactants can serve as effective substitutes, these products will not readily work in all situations, and more importantly, reformulation could result in the introduction of other human health and environmental issues that have not been evaluated.

As noted in Environment Canada's report "Identification and Evaluation of Best Available Technologies Economically Achievable (BATEA) for Textile Mill Effluents - Phase 1 Report, Revised Draft (September 2001)." NPE represent only 7% of the toxicity of TME and other surfactants represent 43%. As such, promoting the reformulation or substitution of NPE, a Track 2 substance, is wholly inappropriate unless it can be shown that other strategies cannot achieve the overall risk management objective.

II. Cost Considerations Associated with Promoting Substitution and Reformulation Should Not Be Dismissed As Minimal

The draft Consultation Report for TME states that "NPEs producers think that the 20% cost premium of using substitutes will not go away at the formulator level." (p. 13) Elsewhere, the report suggest that in actuality there will be minimal cost to substitute and includes the following statement:

Many participants recognized that substitution can be done in most cases. Some mills mentioned that they already managed to substitute NPEs in most cases at almost no cost or aggravation, showing the feasibility of an almost complete substitution.

As already noted, even if the cost is minimal, unless other strategies cannot achieve the overall risk management objective, Environment Canada should not be promoting reformulation or substitution. Nonetheless, APERC believes that the cost will not be trivial and needs to be fully considered in devising appropriate risk management instruments.

In the report "Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates, Review of Toxicity, Biodegradation & Technical-Economic Aspects (28 March 2002)" it is recognized that "in recent years, the price of the alternatives to NPE have been, on average, ~20-40% higher than NPE" and predicts that increases in detergent-grade alcohol capacity are likely. (p. 71) The report also predicts that an oversupply of alcohol ethoxylates (AE) will drive down its market price and will result in lower pricing for AE products. While it is true that additional alcohol production capacity is expected to come online this year and an oversupply situation may result in decreased alcohol and AE market pricing, there is no expectation that the pricing of AE will ever fall near the level of NPE. While the price differential between AE and NPE may decrease, AE is expected to always be priced higher than NPE. Therefore, any changes that limit a users ability to choose NPEs will result in cost increases.

In addition, it is important to remember that the priority sectors identified in the CEPA Assessment on NP/NPE (paper, pulp, textiles, cleaning products) run on very tight profit margins. Even slight increases in raw material costs (i.e., unit cost difference for AE vs. NPE) can adversely affect profit and stability - especially for a small business.

---

¹ Proposed Risk Management Strategy for the Wet Processing Textile Industry Addressing Textile Mill Effluents and Nonylphenol and Its Ethoxylates Under CEPA 1999.                                                                                                                              

 

Site Map   ·   Feedback/Contact Us   ·   Members Only