Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Beverly Thorpe from Clean Production Action. I'm based in Montreal. My organization is registered in the U.S., and we work internationally. Our organization exists to promote sustainable product design and green chemistry, and we work with progressive companies, governments, labour, citizens groups, and basically anyone who's pushing safer materials and chemicals.
I'm a founding member of the UNEP's cleaner production program, and I sit on the advisory committee of the Green Chemistry network, based at York University in the U.K. For almost the last seven years, I've been following the EU chemical policy, particularly now in the final months of the REACH negotiations.
What I would like to talk about in the next few minutes is this whole issue of substitution, which sort of carries on from the discussion on assessment. I believe we could strengthen CEPA by putting in the substitution principle and defining in much better terms what pollution prevention really means.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act defines pollution prevention as a range of options, but gives no priority to the substitution principle, and in fact this may entrench chemical users in ongoing hazardous chemical use. Our primary tool to realize the adoption of safer chemicals is that of pollution prevention planning, triggered within CEPA by the designation of a chemical to be CEPA-toxic. The definition of pollution prevention is “the use of processes...materials, products...that avoid or minimize the creation of pollutants and waste”, but there's no explicit reference to actual material substitution. Therefore, the response to a CEPA-toxic substance could just as easily be an end-of-pipe control that simply minimizes emissions.
What is the substitution principle and how is this different? In my paper, I give a definition that has been more or less agreed upon within Europe: “Substitution means the replacement or reduction of hazardous substances in products and processes by less hazardous or non hazardous substances or by achieving an equivalent functionality via technological or organizational measures.” In other words, a hazardous chemical can be replaced by a safer or non-hazardous chemical, or the chemical's function in the product or process can be met through product redesign or system change.
I don't have time to go into the work we're doing with companies that have actually moved into green chemistry and a totally different paradigm shift into safer chemicals, but the one thing that has come back through a lot of the progressive companies we work with is that there is very little regulatory support, catalysis, or incentive to level the playing field with other companies.
Regarding the problem with pollution prevention versus the substitution principle, in my paper I give the example of the use of PERC in dry cleaning in Canada. PERC has been listed on the priority substances list since 1989, due to its ubiquitous presence in groundwater and its toxicity to humans: it's toxic to the liver, the central nervous system, and is probably carcinogenic to humans, which of course is why it was designated CEPA-toxic. It is found in the breath and breast milk of lactating women who work in dry cleaning establishments and has been found to contaminate bread, meat, and butter from neighbouring shops.
In 2000, PERC was added to the CEPA 1999 list of toxic substances, and in February 2003 regulations were drawn up. However, the purpose of the regulations is to reduce PERC releases to the environment from dry cleaning facilities and not to push for substitution. The regulations mention nothing of substitute solvents or processes, but mandate that reductions of emissions will be attained by requiring newer, more efficient, and often expensive dry cleaning machines, minimizing spills of PERC, and managing the collection and disposal of residue and waste water.
I can understand that the intent was good, but the problem I found with the regulations was that, considering that Environment Canada had done its own research and found alternatives to PERC, such as wet cleaning, CO2 machines, etc., there was no outreach or dedicated dissemination of this information, or training given to the dry cleaning industry.
On the substitution issue, I circulated a copy to Eugene, which I found very interesting. The Chemical Industries Association, the Confederation of British Industry, and Greenpeace, believe it or not, have come to a common position, namely, that “substances requiring an authorization within REACH... should be replaced with less hazardous alternatives wherever and whenever practicable”.
This statement has been used quite a lot within the European Parliament and by many of the companies, retailers, unions, and worker health and safety folks. They are pushing for a strong substitution clause within REACH. Just last week, the European Parliament went through a second presentation. The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on the new legislation on November 14. On December 4, EU governments will vote on the same question. People are hoping that conciliation will happen so that we have a rollout of REACH in April next year.
I have also taken the European Council's common position and worked in the statement by the European Parliament of last week, in both English and French. I've highlighted the reference to substitution within the authorization process. The authorization process is dedicated to chemicals that are carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins. They include endocrine-disrupting chemicals as well as persistent biocumulative toxic chemicals.
Any chemical that triggers that level has to go for authorization. What happens in the authorization process? If you are a producer or user of one of these chemicals, you have to apply for an authorization. An application for authorization must include information on identity, plus an analysis of alternatives that considers their risks and the technical and economic feasibility of substitution. Throughout the review and assessment of authorizations, there is a differing but definite theme of substitution.
Note that this has already been agreed to by both the socialists within the European Parliament and the industry associations. The common position is to ensure the good functioning of the internal market, while assuring that the risks from substances of a very high concern are properly controlled, and that these substances are eventually replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies where these are economically and technically viable.
What I have distributed shows there's considerable emphasis on the need to supply substitution planning, the need to demonstrate that there are no safer alternatives available on the market . How do you define “safer”? Well, there are a lot of guidance documents on this subject. One would be that the substance in question does not itself trigger the criteria for authorization. They open up the process on supplying information on safer chemicals through Internet and third-party input.
Last week, the European Parliament reaffirmed the position they had adopted at their first reading in November 2005. The environment committee argued that substances that cause cancer, reproductive problems or persistent problems in the human body should not be authorized unless three conditions are met: one, if “suitable alternative substances or technologies do not exist”; two, if “it is demonstrated that the social or economic advantages outweigh the risks of these substances to human health or the environment”; or, three, if “the risk is adequately controlled”. Moreover, the authorization given for the use of a substance should be limited to a five-year period.
In conclusion, I believe in adopting a strong definition of substitution. This way we will not be dealing with end-of-pipe controls but actually moving to innovative green chemistry. In Europe great strides are being made in switching to inherently safer chemicals. We're also seeing a lot of demand by downstream users of chemicals, who want more information not only about the chemicals they put in their products but also about available alternatives. We believe that by putting a stronger mandatory requirement for substitution planning within CEPA, you will actually see a movement to much more innovative and green chemistry in Canada.
Thank you.