Notice of objection filed by Prysmian Group North America and Minister’s response to the Notice of objection

Minister's response to Prysmian Group North America

Notice of objection

July 13, 2022
The Honourable Steven Guilbeault
Minister of the Environment
c/o Christina Paradiso
Executive Director Chemicals Management, Environmental Protection Branch
Department of the Environment
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3

By Email: ec.interdiction-prohibition.ec@ec.gc.ca

interdiction-prohibition@ec.gc.ca

Re: Notice of Objection and Request for Board of Review in relation to proposed regulations prohibiting the manufacture, use, sale and import of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE, CAS Registry Number 84852-53-9) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) while providing exemptions to the prohibitions, Canada Gazette, Part I Volume 156, Number 20 (May 14, 2022), Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022.

Dear Minister Guilbeault:

Our company/organization is writing to express our formal objection to the above referenced regulatory proposal.

Prysmian Group North America is the largest wire and cable company in the world, and we provide many types of products that end up in various equipment, buildings and infrastructure throughout the United States and Canada.

We sell products directly into Canada and we also distribute large volumes of various types of cable through third parties into Canada. Our distribution streams add a complexity of tracking cables that may contain DBDPE. It could be a challenge to maintain segregation and labeling these products separately would need to be evaluated. The uncertainty of how the "ban" will be monitored and enforced is a concern as it is unclear how it will be controlled.

As provided for by section 332(2) of CEPA 1999, Prysmian Group North America is filing this Notice of Objection and respectfully request that a Board of Review be established, pursuant to section 333 of CEPA 1999, to "inquire into the nature and extent of danger" posed by DBDPE and PBDEs for the reasons set out below.

Proposed Risk Management Measures May Lead to Severe Risk to Public Health and Safety

DBDPE performs a valuable function by reducing the flammability of the products where it is used. Those products include many consumer devices, as well as appliances, airplanes, and motor vehicles. In the absence of alternatives, the prohibitions of these chemicals could pose a risk of increasing flammability of those products which could present a risk to public health and safety.

As a wire and cable manufacturer we use many different types of compounds in our products. We also make internal compounds that use DBDPE; as a flame retardant to help protect our wire and cable products against fire which indirectly help protect people. Our products go through extensive testing through various regulatory/safety agencies in which they are tested for fire reactions and/or to various flame tests depending on the application. Anytime we replace a chemical ingredient in a compound we are required to requalify or re-list our products with each required agency which requires re-testing. The engineering and certification of products is a time-consuming process that can take years, and there are considerable financial costs involved in this effort.

Proposed Risk Management Measures for DBDPE arc Not Aligned with Other Regulatory Agencies or Agreements

The proposed risk management measures as set out in the proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022 (the "draft Regulation") for DBDPE appear to be an outlier globally. Canada appears to be acting alone to prohibit DBDPE.

Proposed Risk Management Measures May Lead to Supply Chain Disruptions

Product manufacturers operate in a global regulatory environment and must take into account a broad range of product safety and design factors. This includes considerations related to product certification, performance, use and end of life, and chemical registration. These regulatory, design, and performance requirements are addressed through a complex global supply chain for components and subcomponents.

The current supply of alternates is inadequate to meet the increased demand which would result from the DBDPE ban in Canada. Successful requalification of our wire and cable products which use DBDPE can take several years given the stringent flame and long-term wet electrical and thermal stability testing involved. We will not compromise on the safety and performance of our products sold into Canada so the challenge will be to find stable alternates.

Prysmian Group North America designs products to meet relevant safety standards and that are safe when used as intended. Given the lack of available alternatives for DBDPE and unknown costs of compliance with the regulatory proposal, we are requesting that ECCC revise its approach in regulating DBDPE to avoid disruptions to an already overburdened supply chain.

Based upon the facts and arguments set out above we ask the Minister to appoint a Board of Review to "inquire into the nature and extent of danger" posed by DBDPE and PBDEs.

Sincerely,

name Valeria Garcia
Research and Delopment
Prysmian Group North America

Minister's response

Ms. Valeria Garcia
Vice President, Research and Development
Prysmian Group North America
andrea.penrod@prysmiangroup.com; jon.malinoski@prysmiangroup.com; valeria.garcia@prysmiangroup.com; matthew.wagner@prysmiangroup.com; anna.wright@prysmiangroup.com; jamesonheath.booton@prysmiangroup.com

Dear Ms. Garcia: 

This letter is in response to your Notice of Objection and request to establish a board of review to the publication of the proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022 (proposed Regulations), which was received by Environment and Climate Change Canada on July 13, 2022. The proposed Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on May 14, 2022.

I have carefully considered all the issues in your Notice of Objection, including those dealing with the nature and extent of the danger posed by decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) and the other questions and considerations that you brought to my attention. In my opinion, your Notice of Objection does not raise sufficient uncertainty or doubt in the science underlying the proposed Regulations that would warrant the establishment of a board of review under subsection 333(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). Therefore, I am denying your request, and I will not establish a board of review. The reasons for my decision are explained below and in the Annex to this letter.

Responses to comments in your Notice of Objection related to the outcomes of the screening assessment for DBDPE, which concluded that there is a risk of harm to the environment due to the persistence and widespread occurrence of DBDPE in the environment along with the potential for bioaccumulation and toxicity of its transformation products, are provided in the Annex.

The comments in your Notice of Objection regarding the development of the proposed Regulations have been considered alongside other comments received on these regulations. The specific points you have raised on the proposed Regulations and how they will be addressed are also summarized in the Annex to this letter. Your Notice of Objection raised specific concerns on the proposed exemptions for DBDPE, and to address these concerns, the proposed timeline of the DBDPE exemptions will be extended by an additional 10 years (i.e. extended from 5 years to 15 years for new products and from 20 years to 30 years for replacement parts) and the scope of these exemptions will be broadened to include all manufactured items and additional intermediate materials. This extended timeline will allow all stakeholders additional time for the research and development of alternatives, testing and certification, and transitioning their manufacturing and supply chains. Broadening the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will help to reduce the risk of prohibiting critical components, reduce the need to apply for permits under the proposed Regulations for non-exempted parts, and reduce compliance burden of stakeholders throughout the supply chain.

Please note that the comments on the proposed Regulations will be summarized in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that will be published with the final Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025 (2025 Regulations) in the Canada Gazette, Part II, which describe how these matters have been addressed.

I appreciate your bringing your concerns to my attention. Please accept my best regards.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Julie Dabrusin, P.C., M.P. (elle/she/her)

Annex

1) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Proposed Risk Management Measures May Lead to Severe Risk to Public Health and Safety” as set out in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided:

1A) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that DBDPE is used as a flame retardant to meet critical flammability standards and safety requirements in products including consumer devices, appliances, airplanes, motor vehicles and wire and cable products.

Flame retardant substances are generally used to meet performance-based flammability requirements. These requirements do not specify what chemical flame retardants need to be used; rather they may require a product or component to pass a laboratory test such as a cigarette smolder or open flame ignition test (ASTM 2014). Using chemical flame retardants such as DBDPE in products is one of the ways by which companies can meet flammability requirements for their products. Alternate substances as well as non-chemical-based alternatives may also be used to replace the use of DBDPE as a flame retardant in various applications.

In addition to the concerns you have raised in your Notice of Objection, a number of similar comments were received during the public comment period for the proposed Regulations. To address these concerns, the proposed timeline of the DBDPE exemptions will be extended by an additional 10 years (i.e. extended from 5 years to 15 years for new products and from 20 years to 30 years for replacement parts) and the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will be broadened to include all manufactured items and additional intermediate materials. This extended timeline will allow all stakeholders additional time for the research and development of alternatives, testing and certification, and transitioning their manufacturing and supply chains. Broadening the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will help to reduce the risk of prohibiting critical components, reduce the need to apply for permits under the Regulations for non-exempted parts, and reduce compliance burden of stakeholders throughout the supply chain.

1B) In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments due to the lack of available alternatives for DBDPE in some products and that without suitable alternatives, increased flammability of products will create health and safety risks.

Please refer to the response to point 1A (above) respecting the extended timeline for, and broadened scope of the DBDPE exemptions. 

2) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Proposed Risk Management Measures for DBDPE are Not Aligned with Other Regulatory Agencies or Agreements” as provided in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided:

In your Notice of Objection, you noted that the proposed risk management measures as set out in the proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022 (the “draft Regulation”) for DBDPE are an outlier globally.

Canada has been one of the first countries to lead action on flame retardants and was the first country to complete a risk assessment and propose risk management of DBDPE; however, Canada is not alone and since then international action for DBDPE has been underway or has been finalized.

In March 2023, the European Union (EU), under the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published their Regulatory strategy for flame retardants, which has a focus on brominated flame retardants and their prioritization for restriction, including DBDPE. This document noted that:

For decabromodiphenyl ethane (EC 284-366-9, DBDPE) data was requested regarding potential bioaccumulation under substance evaluation and has been assessed by the PBT expert group. The available data, including field studies, appear to confirm the Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) properties of the substance.

Furthermore, on October 31, 2024, ECHA updated the substance evaluation status for DBDPE as “Concluded” and published a Substance Evaluation Conclusion and Evaluation Report that considers DBDPE to meet the Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) Annex XIII very persistent and very bioaccumulative criteria, wide dispersive use and high aggregated tonnage concerns and the need for follow-up regulatory action at the EU level. The report notes the restriction of aromatic brominated flame retardants as proposed in ECHA’s Regulatory strategy for flame retardants appears as a logical continuation following a formal hazard identification as very persistent and very bioaccumulative for DBDPE.

On June 27, 2025, ECHA published a proposal for identification of DBDPE as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) on the basis of the criteria set out in REACH Article 57. A REACH Annex XV report was prepared by Sweden to support the proposal for identification of DBDPE as a SVHC.

In the United States (US), DBDPE is listed as a new chemical and is subject to a Significant New Use Rule, which requires manufacturers and processors to notify the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before a new use for the manufacture, import or processing of DBDPE begins. In June 2021, the EPA made DBDPE subject to a Final Health and Safety Data Reporting rule pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as part of a grouping of 30 organohalogen flame retardants being evaluated for risks by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In January 2024, the CPSC published Organohalogen Flame Retardant Scope Document: Polyhalogenated Benzene Aliphatic and Functionalized Subclass report (the PHBzAF subclass, which includes DBDPE) which concludes that “the PHBzAF subclass has sufficient data to proceed with risk assessment”. Furthermore, DBDPE is restricted in some consumer products under general flame retardant restrictions in some states, such as California, Maine, and New Hampshire.

In August of 2021, Australia published their assessment of DBDPE and found that DBDPE:

meets the persistence, bioaccumulation, adverse effects in aquatic and terrestrial organisms and long-range transport criteria of Annex D of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Therefore, on the basis of the current hazard information available, the assessed chemical could pose an unreasonable risk to the environment. 

The Australian report also recommended control measures be developed under the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Act 2021.

On June 26, 2025, the Australian government finalized its risk management for DBDPE after publishing a statutory public consultation on the proposed risk management for DBDPE in April 2025. The Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard for decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) is a final scheduling decision to list DBDPE to Schedule 6 of the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Instrument 2022. Schedule 6 of this instrument lists “Relevant industrial chemicals that are likely to cause serious or irreversible harm with essential uses” and specifies the risk management measures, including prohibitions and restrictions, that apply to the relevant industrial chemical or a mixture or article containing such a chemical (Australia, 2025).

Canadian risk management for DBDPE takes into consideration actions taken in jurisdictions, including the EU and the US, with the possibility of aligning where appropriate.

3) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Proposed Risk Management Measures May Lead to Supply Chain Disruptions” as provided in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided:

In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments that product manufacturers take into consideration regulatory, design, and performance requirements which are addressed through a complex global supply chain for components and subcomponents and switching to alternatives requires research and development, prototyping, performance testing, manufacturing retooling, and regulatory compliance certification. 

Please refer to the response to point 1A (above) respecting the extended timeline for, and broadened scope of the DBDPE exemptions.