Notice of objection filed by Sumitomo Electric Industries and Minister’s response to the Notice of objection

Minister's response to Sumitomo Electric Industries

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
Email: ec.interdiction-prohibition.ec@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:

*This letter includes our trade secrets. The contents of this letter (including the fact that we submit this letter) are confidential.

Our company writes to express our formal objection to the above-referenced regulatory proposal. These products are used for various applications such as automobiles, aircrafts, and home appliances globally, so these are essential for a wide range of industrial fields. There are international standards of flame resistance for safety and using DBDPE as flame retardant is critical to meet the standards. In addition, we have not discovered a replacement which has a stability of supply, cost, and performance equivalent to DBDPE. Therefore, if the use of DBDPE is prohibited, there is a possibility that we can't supply our products to the market stably. Furthermore, it is assumed that reengineering our products and getting replacements require extraordinary cost. It will make an immeasurable impact on a global market including North America.

For the reasons mentioned above, as provided for by section 332(2) of CEPA 1999, our company 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.

Sincerely,

Takuya Tabuchi
General Manager/ Procurement Department
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

Minister's response

Takuya Tabuchi
General Manager, Procurement Department
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
yamasaki-chihiro@sei.co.jp

Dear Takuya Tabuchi: 

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.

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

The following list provides a summary of comments provided in your Notice of Objection and the responses from the Department:

1. 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 used in various applications such as automobiles, aircrafts and appliances.

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.

2. In your Notice of Objection, you provided comments that due to the lack of available alternatives for DBDPE that have the stability of supply, cost and performance equivalence and the availability of some products may be impacted. In addition, you commented that extraordinary costs are associated with switching to alternatives due to re-engineering of products and would impact global markets including North America. 

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