PDF - Chemistry Industry Association of Canada

Catalyst
THE MAGAZINE OF CANADA’S
CHEMICAL PRODUCERS
Fall 2009
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
CCPA Appears Before the Industry
Committee’s Subcommittee on
Industrial Sectors
Chemistry Transforms Ice Cream
Website Demystifies Chemicals
for the Public
Chemistry = Solutions
www.canadianchemistry.ca
celebrating 5 safe, strong years
in Canada
As we celebrate our five-year anniversary, we are proud to be
a member of Canada’s vibrant manufacturing industry and look
forward to a long and productive future.
We remain committed to our 2012 Environmental, Health
and Safety goals, targeting zero safety incidents and reduced
emissions, and to our ongoing partnership with the Canadian
Chemical Producers Association (CCPA)®. Our Alberta
manufacturing sites recently received their fourth EnviroVista
Award, recognizing leadership in environmental performance
and reflecting our ongoing commitment to Responsible Care.
We look forward to strengthening local partnerships, supporting
community efforts and continuing to run safe and healthy
operations in Canada.
For more information about MEGlobal, please visit:
www.meglobal.biz.
® Responsible Care is a registered trademark of the Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association
MEGlobal is a joint venture between between The Dow Chemical Company and
Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC) of Kuwait.
CCPA
Editor
Michael Bourque
Vice President, Public Affairs
Assistant Editor
Nancy Marchi
Public Affairs Co-ordinator
President & CEO
Richard Paton
Association Office
Canadian Chemical Producers’
Association
805-350 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON K1R 7S8
Tel.: (613) 237-6215
Fax: (613) 237-4061
www.ccpa.ca
NAYLOR
Publisher
Elena Langlois
Editor
Suzy A. Richardson
Sales Manager/Project Manager
Alana Place
Book Leader
Robert Bartmanovich
Sales Representatives
Anook Commandeur, Mark Hawkins,
Wayne Jury, Cheryll Oland,
Dawn Stokes, Blair Van Camp
Research
Zach Swick
Layout & Design
Catharine Snell
Advertising Art
Elaine Connell
Editorial Office
Naylor (Canada), Inc.
2 Bloor Street West, Suite 2001
Toronto, ON M4W 3E2
Tel: (416) 961-1028
Fax: (416) 924-4408
www.naylor.com
Catalyst is published four times per
year by Naylor (Canada), Inc. for
the Canadian Chemical Producers’
Association (CCPA). The CCPA
represents over 70 chemical
manufacturers, which collectively
produce more than 90 per cent
of all chemicals in Canada.
Responsible Care®, an initiative of
Canada’s Chemical Producers, is an
ethic for the safe and environmentally
sound management of chemicals
throughout their life cycle. Invented
in Canada, Responsible Care is now
practiced in 47 countries.
Copyright by the CCPA. All rights
reserved. The views expressed in this
magazine do not necessarily reflect
those of the publisher or the CCPA.
The contents of this publication may
not be reproduced by any means, in
whole or in part, without the prior
consent of the association.
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 2009
CDC-Q0309/8343
Contents
Volume 6, Number 3, FALL 2009
FEATURES
8 Recap: Industry Committee’s Subcommittee on
Industrial Sectors
Speaking notes from CCPA’s appearance before the Industry
Committee’s Subcommittee on Industrial Sectors.
11 Website Demystifies Chemicals for the Public
Now, when people worry about a chemical-related issue that’s in the
public eye, they can turn to www.chemicallyspeaking.com to help identify
and demystify myths and misinformation.
By Lucy Frigon
12 Global Chemistry Industry Announces Findings of
Carbon Life Cycle Analysis
The International Council of Chemical Associations announced in July
the findings of a carbon life cycle analysis of the chemical industry.
13 Minerva: Making a Difference in Safety, Health and
Environmental Education
Minerva Canada Safety Management Education Inc. is a non-profit
organization dedicated to promoting the teaching of SHE Management
in post-secondary schools across Canada.
By Tony Pasteris
12
14 Opinion: Can You See a Difference?
Ontario passes a new law to regulate toxics, while the world-renowned
federal Chemicals Management Plan continues to deliver results.
By Scott Thurlow
COLUMNS
5 Edifications
A Dissonant New Era
By Michael Bourque
7 Responsible Care®
Speaking in Code: The first in a series on the New Responsible Care®
Codes of Practice
By Julien Lavoie
17
DEPARTMENTS
16 Company Profile: NOVA Chemicals
In July, NOVA Chemicals became a private company, remaining
committed to the highest standards of corporate social responsibility and
continuing to operate under the principles of Responsible Care®.
By Greg Wilkinson
17 Fun Facts: Chemistry Transforms Ice Cream
In 1999, Will Schroeder and Thomas Paskach were chemical
engineering graduate students at Iowa State University. Their science
experiment as students has become a business for the now-owners of
Nitro Ice Cream – advertised as the “world’s smoothest ice cream.”
18 Buyers’ Guide/Index to Advertisers
Canadian Publications
Mail Agreement #40064978
Postage Paid at Winnipeg
Catalyst Fall 2009 • 3
442656_PDI.indd 1
8/20/09 12:37:21 PM
Print-on-Demand
Easy, Cost-Effective, Efficient
Efficient
Printing Systems
• Software
• Printer
• Printing media
or
We print for you!
•
•
•
•
Tags
Labels
Pipemarkers
Signs
Call today for your sample package and quotation!
USA 888.442.9628
Canada 888.977.4834
[email protected]
www.thecompliancecenter.com
4•
Catalyst Fall 2009
386628_ICC.indd 1
Since 1987
7/3/08 6:35:50 PM
Edifications
A DISSONANT NEW ERA
By Michael Bourque
WE HAVE ENTERED a new era in government regulation.
This new era was not planned and did not happen overnight. It was not the subject of a Federal-Provincial First
Ministers’ conference or extensive policy debate by political
parties. It wasn’t started as a motion during the annual
meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or
the Public Policy Forum. And yet, here it is, the era of
“regulatory dissonance” in matters relating to science.
I believe there are three primary drivers for regulatory
dissonance.
The first driver is the era of minority government, which
we have seen both federally and provincially. Nobody would
have predicted that a consequence of the minority government era would be bad policy. In fact, the opposite was
expected. Parliamentary Committees are not stacked with
government members and governments cannot expedite
debate the way they can in majority times. Most observers
expected laws to come out of committees as works of compromise, reflecting the views of stakeholders. And yet, we
have seen all kinds of legislative proposals arise in Parliament
that are not grounded in substantive policy debate and in
some cases that are just plain crazy. For example, one proposal during the review of C-6, the Consumer Protection Act,
was to ban a range of consumer products, which would have
included gasoline.
We are supposed to be a science-based,
high-technology, knowledge-worker
economy. Yet we behave as though
science is the enemy.
Second is the new internet-led media and the 24/7 news
cycle. The media have played a huge role in the creation
of regulatory dissonance. There are so many media outlets
now. A blog site operated by an individual with no science
background can make claims that will be picked up by the
mainstream media. Within hours, it has circulated around
the globe. Once it is reported in the media, politicians will
ask the government what they are doing about it. Reporters
rarely have a science background. The government spokesperson rarely has a science background. Outrage is ignited
by ignorance and fuelled for political opportunity. (If I had
listed a fourth driver, it would be the lack of science expertise in bureaucracies—it is hard to push back on your political masters when you don’t have the science knowledge to
back it up.)
The third driver is the internet-savvy Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) that are real beneficiaries of this
vicious circle. NGOs operate in specific markets. They pick
issues that will help sell memberships, boost revenues and
steer clear of the campaigns of other NGOs. Many of these
essential watchdogs have slipped into a cynical pattern. It is
characterized by a high degree of opportunism, fanaticism
and sadly, lack of respect for science. I recently heard an
NGO spokesperson say simply: “We don’t care about the science.” Many NGOs are actively working to tear down the
science-based decision-making mechanisms that have characterized western societies, and they are succeeding.
Every level of government is now contributing to regulatory dissonance. Municipalities and provincial governments
regulate pesticide use, even though we have a significant federal body, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, with
the resources, expertise and mandate to do so. The federal
government regulates air quality, driving affected provincial
governments to cross into other areas of federal jurisdiction.
The most recent example is provincial governments doing
food inspections. Perhaps they’ve not heard of the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency? Well, this is a federal agency with
more than 6,000 full-time employees and a budget of some
$740 million.
Science-based decision-making at all levels and for all products—from healthcare to consumer products—is impacted by
this new era of dissonance. The producers of these goods are
no longer sure what the rules are and have trouble making
investment decisions. Companies are resorting to using the
courts to fight government decisions. Even a recession on the
scale we are currently witnessing does not stop the overlap,
duplication and over-regulation of this new era.
Sadly, the end result will be higher prices for consumers,
higher taxes and no net gain for health or the environment.
We are supposed to be a science-based, high-technology,
knowledge-worker economy. Yet we behave as though science
is the enemy.
What can we do about it? That would be the subject of
another column. But the best idea I’ve heard in a long time
is the creation of a Science Court, which would provide an
independent venue for challenging governments that choose
to act out of political expediency rather than logic and science. A Science Court would provide a check and balance
in the new era of regulatory dissonance.
A
Michael Bourque is Vice-President, External Relations,
Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association. He can be
reached at [email protected].
Catalyst Fall 2009 • 5
411393_NOVA.indd 1
T
12/4/08 11:26:38 AM
®
H
E
Patented blending/dispersing blade design makes radical
improvement over old saw tooth designs
POLY
* Most efficient and aggressive blending/dispersing
blade available.
* Provides proper combination of pumping action and
shear/dispersion essential for fast consistent results.
* Built in pumping action cuts processing time.
* Longer life due to heavier gauge construction.
* Less heat due to shorter required running time.
* Excellent for high or low speed and high or low viscosity.
* Supplied with hubs or mounting holes required to
retrofit and upgrade present equipment.
* Pumping blades without teeth are available and are
excellent for gentle blending and agitation.
6 • Catalyst Fall 2009
376371_Conn.indd 1
STAINLESS
DESIGNERS AND MANUFACTURERS OF INDUSTRIAL MIXING EQUIPMENT
Since 1948
CONN CO., L.L.C.
AND
www.connblade.com
PAINTS
INKS
Stirrers Or Complete Units For:
URETHANE FOAMS
ADHESIVES
GROUTS
CEMENTS
SLURRIES
ETC. . . .
s r
r
TM
11 SOUTH MARION STREET • WARREN, PENNA. 16365
PHONE (814) 723-7980 • FAX (814) 723-8502
4/9/08 4:54:40
435636_Envirotec.indd
PM
1
6/29/09 9:04:42 AM
Responsible Care®
SPEAKING IN CODE
Striking the Right Balance for the
New Responsible Care Codes of Practice
By Julien Lavoie
WITH A NEW ethic and a new set of principles designed
to explicitly deal with sustainability, the beating heart
of Responsible Care is now much more in tune with
Canadians’ expectations on a host of issues, including climate change, chemical content of consumer products and
business ethics.
But as much as Responsible Care’s ethic and principles
offer aspirational goals for its adherents, it’s the Responsible
Care Codes of Practice that guide companies through the
day-to-day decisions that are crucial to the attainment of
sustainability objectives. What criteria should guide the
review of management systems to ensure they protect the
long-term health and safety of employees and communities?
What policies or standards should be applied to the design of
new products or the purchase of new equipment? What plan
should be in place to deal with incidents, eliminate waste or
conserve resources? These are only a few of the questions the
Responsible Care Codes of Practice address.
Over the next issues, Catalyst will provide an overview
of the new Responsible Care Codes of Practice as they are
being developed by specialized steering committees and
will provide insight into some of the major changes being
proposed. The first big change is that the number of codes
will be streamlined from the current six to a comprehensive and inclusive three, namely the Operations Code, the
Stewardship Code and the Accountability Code.
“The existing six Responsible Care Codes of Practice had
essentially remained unchanged in the last 20 years,” says
Brian Wastle, CCPA’s Vice-President of Responsible Care.
“Even though these codes continue to deliver improvements
in the health, safety and environmental performance of
chemical companies, people’s expectations are now much
higher.”
Yet before attempting to update them, CCPA reflected
on the need to have codes of practice at all. “There are a few
models we could have emulated, including what
the American Chemistry Council has done,
which is to rely on risk assessment as part
of the ‘plan’ step of a management system
approach to
guide needed
action, underpinned by a
more rigorous
regulatory system than we
have in Canada, instead of a more prescriptive set of codes,”
Wastle says. “Ultimately, the board agreed that having a set
of codes provides an opportunity to further elaborate on the
collective expectations – or aspirations that we have, especially on the new sustainability elements in the Responsible
Care principles.”
But the CCPA Board was concerned about striking the
right balance between prescriptive codes and ambitious
principles. “An overly prescriptive set of codes would fail to
recognize the diversity of our membership, would impede
innovation and would turn verification into an auditing process,” Wastle adds. “It’s also hard to write codes for the vast
variety of companies currently in the membership. However,
a loosely defined set of principles which provide no details
on how to achieve continual improvement is open to misunderstanding and ultimately meaningless to the everyday
work that companies engage in.”
To make the transition from six to three codes, code
elements were grouped under three headings, starting with
those over which the company often has more direct control, such as manufacturing and transportation (Operations
Code), through those that involve developmental work or
more indirect influence via suppliers, customers and distributors (Stewardship Code), to those that involve the
issues of engagement with other stakeholders, both locally
and broadly (Accountability Code).
After the general concept of three codes came into focus,
CCPA reached out to its membership, staff, former and current verifiers, and advisory panel members to form three
steering committees tasked with writing the new codes.
The committee members were chosen for their expertise
with Responsible Care and the chemistry industry, and for
specific areas of knowledge which they could contribute to
the elaboration of the operations, stewardship and accountability codes.
“We literally started with a blank page,” says Graham
Creedy, CCPA’s Responsible Care Consultant entrusted to
participate in the elaboration of the Operations Code. “We
looked at every aspect of the existing codes and weighed
them against the new sustainability expectations to make
sure the new Operations Code would be as comprehensive
as the ones it replaced.”
Deciding not to reinvent the wheel, the committees
charged with reviewing the codes – or Code Builders, as they
have been nicknamed – opted not to alter their fundamental
continued on page 10
Catalyst Fall 2009 • 7
Feature
RECAP: INDUSTRY COMMITTEE’S
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL
SECTORS
Following are the speaking notes from CCPA’s appearance before
the Industry Committee’s Subcommittee on Industrial Sectors
as delivered by Richard Paton on Thursday, April 23, 2009.
I AM GOING to start my presentation
with a question. In roughly five years,
Canada has seen its manufacturing
sectors go from 18.1% of our GDP
down to about 14%. The manufacturing sector has lost over 320,000 jobs
between 2004 and 2008. That’s more
than one in seven manufacturing jobs
disappeared. In addition to the men
and women who have lost their jobs,
this is a hit to communities across
the country—especially in Ontario
and Quebec. In the chemical sector,
we have lost about 12 plants in the
past five years, two major plants in
Montreal, as well as several plants in
Ontario.
So my question is this: What’s an
acceptable number for our manufacturing sector? Would letting this number slide even more to, say, 12% or
10% be OK for the future? Or should
Canada develop a robust manufacturing strategy that will either maintain
or rebuild the core role of manufacturing in the economy?
I know that your main focus has
been on the forestry industry and aerospace—both of which are very important sectors that deserve attention.
But today I am here to try to
convince you that Canada needs to
move beyond dealing with specific
sector problems on an urgent basis
to recognize that we need a clear
approach to the Canadian economy
that will enable Canada to come out
of the recession stronger and more
competitive.
The three major points I want to
make today are:
8 • Catalyst Fall 2009
First, that the chemical sector is a
very good illustration of why we must
focus on the interdependence and
synergy among resource development,
manufacturing and services to create a strong Canadian economy that
benefits Canadians and Canadian
communities.
Secondly, manufacturing has to
be an integral part of our economy
if we want to maximize our standard of living and employment for
Canadians.
And thirdly, that government
policy matters, but major improvements are needed to create the policy
environment for the investment and
growth of the Canadian economy and
manufacturing.
MY FIRST POINT: The
chemical sector depends
on a robust Canadian
economy, including a
resource and services
sector as well as a dynamic and growing manufacturing sector.
As I am the President of a Canadian
chemical association, you are probably wondering why I am going to
speak to the broader economy and not
just my sector. The reason is that the
$48-billion chemical industry is
what we call an enabling—or
linking—industry.
As the fourth-largest manufacturer
in Canada, we transform resources
like oil, gas, salt and electricity into
chemical products, which are then
used by a wide variety of industries
such as automotive, forestry, mining,
pharmaceuticals and plastics, as well as
1.
products and technologies that reduce
pollution, clean water and support
medical applications.
Chemical producers add five to
20 times the value to base resources
through this conversion process, thus
directly creating wealth for the economy as well as all the other sectors we
depend on and supply.
Our industry cannot prosper in isolation of a strong and vibrant resource
development sector, or without other
manufacturers to use our products.
Chemicals are one of the major input
costs for pulp and paper production,
so when the forestry industry is in
trouble, some of our companies are in
trouble.
Approximately $5,000 of every car
manufactured is a chemical product—
whether it be in plastics, rubbers and
increasingly in composite products,
which make cars lighter, or batteries
which enable hybrid cars.
We are also highly dependent on a
wide range of services such as banking,
computer support, transportation (especially rail) and waste management.
For these reasons, my industry has a
very strong interest in the strength of
the total economy in Canada. We prosper as the Canadian economy develops
and, like most manufacturing sectors,
87% of our products are exported to
the U.S.—making us part of the overall North American economy.
Since 2006, our Association—
alongside many others—has called
attention to the decline in Canadian
manufacturing. The current economic
crisis has only exacerbated the loss of
manufacturing jobs to jurisdictions
with a more favourable investment
climate.
However, I am hopeful that a good
crisis will not be wasted and that
Parliamentarians will hear the wakeup call for our economy and the need
to have more robust strategies for the
future.
The hard question is: Does Canada
want to avoid the 10% solution—and
simply watch passively as more manufacturing plants close and more jobs
are lost in vital communities? If not,
then governments must fundamentally
change the approach we have taken
to the economy, especially related to
manufacturing.
THIS BRINGS ME to my
second point: Canada
is missing major opportunities to build an
economy that maximizes the value-added potential and
resource base of our economy.
Canada is resource-rich, and we
pride ourselves in our growing service
industry. However, those two sectors
are linked and highly interdependent with manufacturing. Without our
manufacturing sector, all we are doing
is extracting resources here and shipping them out to other countries that
add the value of five to 20 times and
then sell them back to us.
Increasingly, this is what is happening with the emergence of China and
India as huge global manufacturing
centres.
Right at this time, pipelines are
being built to move raw bitumen from
Canada to the U.S. for upgrading.
Alberta is one of the few provinces
with a clear strategy to upgrade
those resources—even though it is
challenging.
I would strongly argue that an
economy that capitalizes on its
resource advantage by adding wealth
or value to these resources is better off than one where resources are
just shipped to other countries to
develop.
As a country, we should be maximizing the value of those resources
for Canadians and doing everything
we can to achieve this objective.
2.
Given the huge value of our forestry,
mineral, oil and gas and agriculture
base, one would think that Canada
would have developed a strong, valueadded resource upgrading strategy for
the country to maximize the value of
these resources for Canadians.
Sadly, this is not the case, and we
are now paying for it and will pay even
more in the future with the loss of
employment for our skilled workers.
Canada needs to recognize that to
build a truly powerful global economy,
we must build on the strengths of our
unique resource base and maximize
the development of manufacturing
related to this resource base.
A strong manufacturing sector
is also critical to having an effective
service sector. Services such as IT,
environmental clean-up and even
R&D are dependent on a vibrant
manufacturing sector.
And as Sir John Rose, the chief
executive of Rolls-Royce, brilliantly
pointed out last year: “We must stop
hiding behind the myth that we have
become a post-industrial economy as
if this was a helpful concept and a
meaningful ambition.” Mr. Rose goes
on to state the challenge in these
terms: “The less manufacturing we
have, the more skills will be lost, the
less capacity we will have to innovate and create products, and the more
limited the options we will have as a
country.”
It’s worth noting that Mr. Rose’s
comments were made about the
United Kingdom, and this, before the
global financial meltdown—and we
can see the dangers of relying on a
service-only industry as has been done
in the UK.
For Canada, if we continue to lose
capacity in manufacturing, real wealth
creation and economic growth will be
at risk.
When looking to other countries to
put this into context, DOW Chemical
Company CEO Andrew Liveris had
this to say: “ … emerging economic
powers like China and India understand that when you build an economy from the ground up—make a
strong manufacturing base as its foundation—benefits flow to everyone.” He
quantifies this by saying that: “The 14
million men and women who work in
U.S. manufacturing created about $1.6
trillion of wealth in 2007.”
Countries like China, India,
Germany and Singapore have understood the crucial importance of manufacturing to their economies. These are
our competitors. They know the global
game that we are in. They align their
policies to make sure their manufacturers can increase their market share in
the global economy.
MY FINAL POINT today
is that government has
a role to play in ensuring a robust manufacturing sector.
The fact is that government policy
does matter in the development of a
strong manufacturing sector or chemical industry.
There are many areas of government policy, both federal and provincial, which add costs to industry, which
make it more difficult to introduce products, which create unnecessary overlap
and duplication between the federal and
provincial governments, or where there
are significant policy vacuums that lead
to counterproductive policies.
One example of a huge policy vacuum is energy policy.
Each year, CCPA produces a competitiveness scorecard for various
governments, including the federal
government. We’ve circulated copies
for you.
These scorecards analyze the
complete business factors that make
Canada a competitive jurisdiction in
which to invest. These scorecards look
at everything from fiscal and monetary policy, inflation, corporate taxation, labour costs and trade policies,
to things like the legal system, insurance, energy supply and pricing, transportation and infrastructure in place,
workforce availability and R&D tax
treatment.
The fact is—in this globally competitive world, to win is a bit like trying
to win the Stanley Cup in the playoffs.
Every team is good. The game is really
rough and fast. To win, you must have
the total package. This is an example
of the total package for our industry.
3.
Catalyst Fall 2009 • 9
There is a need for political leaders of all parties to
SPEAKING IN CODE
work together to create the conditions for a strong and
continued from page 7
competitive manufacturing sector in Canada—of which
purpose. Through these changes, the
codes will remain, in essence, a summary of the aspects of company life that
must be addressed by a company’s management system in a manner consistent
with the Responsible Care ethic and
principles for sustainability. The codes
will continue to provide a description
of the desired outcomes that a comprehensive, robust and self-healing management system must deliver.
According to Wastle, the codes are a
combination of “warnings” of what has
gone wrong in the past and might go
wrong in the future, and a “vision” of
what needs to be addressed to empower
a company to sustain itself profitably
over the long term. The hope is that
the codes will continue to be flexible
to varying circumstances while providing sufficient clarity to allow companies to abide appropriately by the ethic
and principles. In essence, some code
elements will be more applicable than
others to certain companies.
“There are tough elements to grapple with in the principles,” Wastle sums
up. “Things like innovating for safer
products or meeting expectations for
social responsibility are crucial to our
collective vision of a sustainable chemistry industry, but they need concrete
definition if they are to be truly meaningful and a central part of Responsible
Care.”
A
the chemical industry is an important part.
You can see, even without reading the
text, the number of positives and negatives, and you can see that there are a
lot of areas for improvement.
Industries like ours do not favour
subsidies or handouts or even special
treatment. But, we do expect governments to do their part in creating the
policies that are required for manufacturers to compete globally and at least
avoid introducing measures that undermine or reduce competitiveness.
Canada needs to develop policies
to encourage investment in manufacturing, which encourage upgrading of
resources, and which stimulate progress
towards sustainability objectives.
Although some progress has been
made recently in terms of corporate tax
and with the harmonization of taxes in
Ontario, the fact remains that there are
major obstacles to investing in Canada
compared to other jurisdictions.
These issues were well documented
in the excellent all-party Industry
Committee report led by then-Chair
James Rajotte in 2006, which made 14
recommendations to improve the situation of manufacturing.
Few of these recommendations have
been addressed.
Conclusions
We are at a critical time. The creation of this subcommittee corresponds
with the urgency that is being felt in
many sectors of the economy.
But, as trying as these times are
for manufacturing, there is a real
opportunity to create some policy direction for the Canadian economy after
this recession.
There is an opportunity to rethink
some of our assumptions about
Canadian manufacturing and to
develop a real roadmap for the future.
This subcommittee has an opportunity to make its mark in how we
will recover and can set the tone on
the kind of leadership that we will
need to get through this stronger than
before. I may be asking you to work
on a direction that is not specifically
your mandate, but there is a need for
a robust debate on this subject and
the engagement of Parliamentarians.
If not you, who will do it?
I would like to encourage you and
your committee to build on the work
of the Rajotte committee report and
think beyond the problems of a particular sector or even this recession
period and address the medium-term
and longer-term requirements for a
competitive manufacturing sector as
part of a strong Canadian economy.
A
Richard Paton is President, CCPA and
can be reached at [email protected].
VJCHEM CANADA INC.
Industrial / Lab Chemical in Various Grades,
Ferrous Sulphate Hepta / Mono USP Grade.
Microbiological Stain Indicators, pH papers
20 Doncaster Dr. Brampton On L6T 1S7
Tel.: 905 488 7145 Fax: 212 202 5037
[email protected]
VJCHEM 34 Years in Chemicals
10 • Catalyst Fall 2009
391284_VJchem.indd 1
www.vjchem.net
7/11/08 2:48:44 PM
Julien Lavoie is CCPA’s Manager of
Communications and Parliamentary
Relations.
Please support
the advertisers
who have helped
to make this
publication possible.
Feature
WEBSITE DEMYSTIFIES
CHEMICALS FOR THE PUBLIC
By Lucy Frigon
CHEMICAL SCIENTISTS AND engineers in all fields are passionate and
proud of what they do. They all share
one ultimate goal: to help make the
world a better place to live. However,
over the years, many have had to
develop a thick skin because few of
their achievements are known, and
little positive news about chemistry is
mentioned in the media. Instead, we
hear a lot of negatives. The frustrating part is that a significant portion
of these negative statements may not
be justified. Why? Perhaps in large
part because of popular myths, lack of
knowledge and misinformation.
So, what can the chemical community do?
We can organize ourselves
and share our knowledge in
a way that is easy to understand for non-scientists. We
can assist a range of people—
parents, teachers, bureaucrats,
etc.—to help them make sense
of household chemicals and
their perceived or real danger.
We’ve taken one important step in
this direction.
The Canadian Chemical Producers’
Association (CCPA) has partnered with
the Chemical Institute of Canada (CIC)
and Dr. Joe Schwarcz to create the new
website, www.chemicallyspeaking.com. It
is an easy-to-understand, go-to source
that demystifies the role of chemicals
in our daily lives. Through videos, reference articles and commentaries, the
website sheds light on issues and helps
make sense of perceived or real chemical risks.
How often have we heard about
this or that chemical in baby shampoo,
shower curtains, plastic bottles and so
on? Or all those chemicals that end up
in our blood because of our environment? It always sounds alarming, and
people are legitimately concerned
about their health and that of their
loved ones. Are these serious threats?
Can people believe what they hear in
the media?
Now, when they worry about
a chemical-related issue that’s in
the public eye, people can turn to
www.chemicallyspeaking.com to help
identify and demystify myths and misinformation in a vocabulary that is
accessible to anyone. Often, there is
not a clear-cut right or wrong answer,
but it is important to be aware of what’s
out there and be able to separate myth
from truth: www.chemicallyspeaking.
com aims to do just that.
The website will also help people
realize that decisions they make
every day in their house, backyard,
car or workplace have an impact—
“chemically speaking.” For example,
did you drink orange juice this morning as your dose of vitamin C or did
you choose grapefruit juice instead?
Depending on the type of medication
you already take, this decision may
have an impact on your health. In the
backyard, how do you maintain your
lawn? Did you have coffee, and did you
have it in a reusable mug or in a paper
cup on your drive to work? What are
your kids’ toys made of? How do you
package leftovers at home or carry
water around? Do you use sunscreen?
These questions are related to decisions people make every day that are
associated with chemicals.
www.chemicallyspeaking.com is fortunate to count on a recognized, trusted
partner. Joe Schwarcz is the director of
McGill University’s Office for Science
and Society. He is well known for
his efforts at interpreting science for
the public and for demonstrating the
importance of understanding chemistry
as it pertains to daily life.
He explains facts in straightforward
layman’s terms, and he truly has a talent for putting facts into perspective.
His calm approach is simple and makes
sense. “Chemicals in and of themselves are not safe or dangerous, there
are only safe or dangerous ways to use
chemicals,” Schwarcz says. He adds
that: “Many natural substances can be dangerous if taken
by the wrong person or in the
wrong quantity. Conversely,
many chemicals that are perceived as harmful may not be
when used responsibly. The
idea of this website is to have
a trusted source for making
choices.”
www.chemicallyspeaking.com pledges
to remain unbiased and will not be
influenced by CCPA and its member
societies or partners, by the CIC or any
other entity. It will remain independent
and seek to present facts as they are.
The new website is a positive initiative of CCPA that was shared with
the CIC. It is now a component of the
overall CIC Public Understanding of
Chemistry Program. As it develops and
grows, we invite you to get to know it
and direct people to it whenever they
wonder about chemicals in their everyday life.
A
Lucie Frigon is the Communications
Manager for the Chemical Institute
of Canada. She can be reached at
[email protected].
Catalyst Fall 2009 • 11
Feature
GLOBAL CHEMISTRY INDUSTRY
ANNOUNCES FINDINGS OF
CARBON LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS
THE INTERNAT IONAL COUNCIL of
Chemical Association s (ICCA)
announced in July the findings of
a carbon life cycle analysis of the
chemical industry. The study found
that for every unit of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emitted directly and indirectly
by the chemical industry, the industry enabled more than two units of
emission savings via the products
and technologies provided to other
industries and consumers. The study
also found that by 2030, the ratio of
GHG emission savings to emissions
could increase to more than “four
to one,” provided certain actions are
taken by industry, stakeholders and
policymakers.
McKinsey & Company and the Öko
Institut (Institute for Applied Ecology)
jointly participated in the study of the
global chemical industry’s impact on
greenhouse gas emissions through the
life cycle of chemical products and the
difference these products make in the
applications they enable.
Analyses were performed for more
than 100 individual chemical product
applications. Emission savings were
compared with all emissions linked to
the chemical industry. The analyses
spanned the major relevant products
and sectors of the chemical industry
and covered a representative amount of
the CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent)
emissions linked to the chemical industry. All industry production-related
GATX Rail Canada primarily serves the chemical and petroleum rail
transportation markets. Our commitment to the health and safety of our
employees, communities and environment is integral with serving these
markets. GATX Rail Canada is proud “to go beyond what’s required” and be
a partner of Responsible Care.
Our goal: Participate in the growth of a healthy economy while maintaining a
healthy and safe workplace and community environment. We owe this to you - we
owe this to ourselves.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact Graham Cooper, our
V.P. Operations at 514-931-7343 ext. 1869
GATX Rail Canada provides finance and railcar leasing services on a net or
full-service basis. Our full-service leasing is supported by our nationwide
network of major service centers and mobile repair units.
GATX Rail Canada
www.gatx.com
12 • Catalyst Fall 2009
314922_GATX.indd 1
emissions were included, whereas only
the major use-driven emissions savings
were measured. Additional life cycle
analysis could therefore reveal greater
emissions savings than reported in
this study. The full report is available
online at www.icca-chem.org.
The chemical industry is the first
global industry to embark on such an
initiative and confirms that it is an
enabler of solutions to decarbonize the
global economy by making products
that save energy and create net emission reductions.
The most significant emissions savings by volume were found to be from
building isolation materials (such as
expanded polystyrene, extruded polystyrene or polyurethane), agrochemicals, lighting, plastic packaging, marine
antifouling coatings, synthetic textiles,
automotive plastics, low-temperature
detergents, engine efficiency, and plastics used in piping.
A
www.haroldmarcus.com
Specializing in
Chemical Transportation
Throughout Canada
and the U.S.
CALL (519) 695-3734
FAX (519) 695-2249
BOTHWELL, ONTARIO
6/12/07 4:14:43 PM
Feature
MINERVA: MAKING A DIFFERENCE
IN SAFETY, HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
By Tony Pasteris
WITH THE CURRENT pace of retirements,
more engineers are being fast-tracked
into operating positions where safety
is an important and vital component
of their work. Educators are beginning to hear from industry, including
CCPA member-companies, that there
is a need for engineers better-educated
in the areas of Safety, Health and
Environmental (SHE) Management and
Process Safety Management (PSM).
Minerva Canada Safety Management
Education Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the
teaching of SHE Management in postsecondary schools across Canada. It targets the educators of tomorrow’s leaders
by encouraging colleges and universities
to embed SHE management education
into the core curricula of business and
engineering schools. Minerva’s Board of
Directors and Working Committee consists of volunteers from industry, government, academia and Health and Safety
(H&S) associations.
Minerva provides case studies, engineering and business student awards
competitions along with its Summer
Institute program to help educators and
students become more aware of and
better understand the importance, the
need for and the fundamentals of SHE
management education. To carry out its
mission, Minerva Canada must rely on
continued financial support from industry and government and is grateful to
have the Canadian Chemical Producers’
Association and some of its membercompanies supporting its programs.
Initiated in 2004 through the process safety management divisions of
the Chemical Institute of Canada and
the Canadian Society for Chemical
Engineering, the Summer Institute
introduces engineering and business
professors to the principles of SHE
management education, including process safety management concepts for
engineering professors. It is an intensive
three-day training program consisting
of workshops, industrial site visits,
panel discussions, and presentations
from industry, government and H&S
associations.
Since 2008, the Summer Institute
has reached out to younger professors
in Chemical Engineering and to professionals with little industry experience.
The 2008 and 2009 Institutes provided
professors with the greatest-ever teaching resource materials for their classes
and information on where to find other
material easily. The Summer Institutes
have focused on six key themes:
1. SHE management systems and the
PSM elements of the Center for
Chemical Process Safety
2. Safety engineering technology
3. Engineering design
4. Ethics
5. Regulations, codes, standards and
operating practices
6. Leading SHE teaching practices and
research.
A special session was organized this
year in which two recent chemical
engineering graduates discussed their
working life and what they would have
liked to learn in their undergraduate
engineering program. One of the graduates works for a large multinational company and the other is the sole engineer
with a small specialty chemical producer. Their feedback underlined the
need for improved training in SHE
management. A particular weakness
they noted was the lack of hazard recognition training, and Minerva plans
to include a session on this subject at
future Summer Institutes.
As a result of the efforts from some
of Minerva’s directors, the level of
risk-management education will be a
new component to be audited at each
Canadian engineering school by the
Canadian Engineering Accreditation
Board (CEAB). A framework for
what should be assessed by the CEAB
was developed at this year’s Summer
Institute.
Minerva knows it is making a difference towards assisting Canadian universities and colleges in including more
of the fundamentals of process safety
and loss management in their courses
across Canada. However, the work is far
from over. To date, 135 professors from
27 Canadian universities have attended
the Summer Institutes. Ninety percent
of these professors have implemented
some part of the SHE teaching materials given to them within two months of
the commencement of classes.
The Summer Institute is a longterm initiative that will have a valuable
impact for organizations like CCPA. It
will help to prepare tomorrow’s corporate leaders with the proper SHE and
process safety management education
mindset and thereby help to reduce process-related incidents and the adverse
safety, health and environmental consequences associated with them.
A
Tony Pasteris is President, Minerva
Canada Safety Management Education
Inc. He can be reached at minerva@
safetymanagementeducation.com.
For more information about Minerva
Canada and The Summer Institute, visit
www.safetymanagementeducation.com.
Catalyst Fall 2009 • 13
Opinion
CAN YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE?
Ontario passes a new law to regulate toxics, while the
world-renowned federal Chemicals Management Plan
continues to deliver results.
By Scott Thurlow
I N T H E S P R I N G of 20 09, t he
Government of Ontario passed its
Toxics Reduction Act. There was no
real substantive debate. There was
no genuine engagement with the
industry affected by the statute.
Most importantly, sound science was
excluded from the discourse. From
its introduction to its passage in less
than two months, less than 24 hours
of debate was dedicated to it in the
Legislative Assembly and in committees. During the committee stages, a
string of industry advocates pushed
for changes that would make the proposed bill workable. These advocates
were completely ignored by MPPs
who were not at all interested in the
effect this new law would have on
Ontario’s economy.
The most important question is why
the government needs to grant itself
the power to regulate the content of
a product if no part of its manufacturing process calls for specific abatement
of a toxic. Cynics would argue that
the plan, as laid out, is simply window
dressing to justify limitations on the
use of certain substances. A side-byside comparison of the two regulatory
approaches reveals the extent to which
Ontario erred.
The first stage of the federal risk
assessment process is a CEPA Section
71 Survey, a gathering of information
to assess whether a substance is toxic
or capable of becoming toxic, based
on how it is manufactured, imported,
used, sold and released in Canada. The
first stage of the Ontario process is a
“materials accounting” which uses a
system that is distinct from the federal plan. This new layer of accounting will add costs to manufacturing in
Ontario as companies redeploy resources to meet these requirements, which
14 • Catalyst Fall 2009
will have no actual impact on reducing
risk.
In Ontario, a substance was added
to the proposed list because the government believed it to be toxic. Ontario
hasn’t conducted independent risk
assessments, and has no intention
of doing so – meaning the process is
hazard-based and not risk-based, which
is a significant concern to industry
stakeholders. Ontario proposed to list
hundreds of substances as toxic under
the new legislation, to be compiled from
the most dangerous substances on the
National Pollutant Release Inventory
(NPRI), the Great Lakes Regional Toxic
Air Emissions Inventory, California’s
Proposition 65, and the lone substance
found in Ontario’s Regulation 127/01:
acetone. Put bluntly, the list was compiled by looking at existing Certificates
of Approval and cross-referencing it
with an array of “lists” of products from
other regulatory bodies.
This was a completely different process than that which gave birth to the
Canadian Chemicals Management Plan
(CMP). The Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999)
required that 23,000 existing substances on the Domestic Substances List be
screened. The criteria used were persistence (P) in the environment, possibility of bioaccumulation (B) in fish
or other organisms in the food chain,
inherent toxicity (iT) in the environment, greatest potential for human
exposure, and toxicity to humans.
The federal government is doing a
comprehensive review of the substances for which it has the most concern
(high priority) in batches of 15, and
will deal with medium- and low-priority
substances in the future. No substance
will be declared toxic without a risk
assessment and public comment period
when both ENGOs and industry have
the opportunity to use science-based
evidence to respond to the conclusions
reached by the government. A summary
of each submission is provided publicly,
and there are numerous stages in the
process where any party can take issue
with any finding. Admittedly, there
have been differences of opinion over
some conclusions, but at no time was
any stakeholder left out of the process.
The Ontario list, by contrast, was
designed in the “black box” of an advisory panel that did not have the benefit
of input from companies that use these
substances every day and have the most
expertise working with them.
Ontario companies will
be further discouraged
from investing in Ontario
because of the added
paper and regulatory
burden.
Without industry’s input, Ontario
declared a litany of substances to be
toxic by passing the legislation and it
did so based on concerns, not evidence.
Ontario has not even definitively stated
that it will abide by the results of a federal risk assessment under the CMP –
and it will act on substances even if the
federal government declares that they
do not qualify as toxic under CEPA.
Ontario claims that its program will
work in conjunction with the federal
program, but to date there has been no
evidence to substantiate this claim.
The final stage of the federal plan is
a dialogue with stakeholders (industry,
ENGOs, communities) with several
distinct phases: the review of possible
risk management solutions, settling
on direct proposals and implementing
those proposals. Each phase is open to
public scrutiny and review.
The original Ontario survey for
stakeholders bluntly asked if there was
support for Ontario banning substances with limited scientific evidence of
hazard, let alone risk. That, in and of
itself, speaks volumes on the intent
of the government to manage these
substances.
There are many possible repercussions to the Ontario Toxics Act:
• Ontario companies will be further discouraged from investing in
Ontario because of the added paper
and regulatory burden.
• Ontario industries will find substances on the Ontario list and present
evidence for excluding them. If that
industry fits into a Minister’s portfolio, it may find an ally in that
Minister. Because the list is hazardbased and not risk-based, it lends
itself to political interference.
• ENGOs will continue to seek additional changes to the Act so that
“toxic” substance reduction will
be mandatory—not just reporting.
This will occur even where substances are not putting the public at risk.
Eventually, industries will be forced
to manufacture elsewhere, although
their products will still end up in
the hands of Ontario consumers.
It is unclear what regulatory gap
in the federal government’s CMP the
Ontario plan is designed to address –
except that it claims to go further.
The federal plan is not flawless.
It takes a precautionary approach
to many aspects of chemical
regulation and, in some limited cases
(i.e. Bisphenol A), it ignores its own
risk assessment to take regulatory
actions that will not limit the risks
identified. In some other cases, it
ignores the axiom “the dose is the
poison” and creates a hazard-based
management system.
By comparison, however, the federal plan is much stronger and is not
susceptible to the same type of political interference. It is interesting
that the Ontario government prides
itself on being the jurisdiction of the
future and the center of innovation,
when it will not even use science as
the basis for a program that directly
targets the most innovative industries
in the province. It is unfortunate that
Ontario’s legislators refused to listen to
industry representatives who offered
them constructive solutions. The sad
reality is that their actions have added
to an already onerous paper burden
that makes working in Ontario even
more cost-prohibitive than operating
in other jurisdictions. Meeting regulations that do not add value will drive
up manufacturing costs and, consequently, consumer costs. To a sector
that is already feeling the pinch from
the slowing economic climate, this
legislation is toxic indeed.
A
Scott Thurlow is Senior Counsel at
Temple Scott Associates in Ottawa. He
can be reached at [email protected].
Lutz Industrial
Duty Drum
and Container
Pumps
Transferring flammables, corrosive chemicals,
or viscous products? Lutz offers a solution
for all of your needs.
Please request
updated 24
page catalog.
Please contact us for more information.
Lutz Pumps, Inc.
1160 Beaver Ruin Road
Norcross, GA 30093-4898
Phone: (770) 925-1222
Tollfree: (800) 843-3901
Fax: (770) 923-0334
www.lutzpumps.com
e-Mail: [email protected]
387001_Pioneer.indd 1
Catalyst Fall 2009
• 15
6/11/08 7:43:58 PM
Profile
NOVA CHEMICALS: COMMITTED TO
RESPONSIBLE CARE® IN TIMES OF
CHANGE
By Greg Wilkinson
IN JULY, NOVA Chemicals became a private company, under
100% ownership with the International Petroleum Investment
Company (IPIC). As a private company under this new ownership, we will continue to operate in the IPIC business portfolio.
Going forward, NOVA Chemicals remains fully committed
to the highest standards of corporate social responsibility and will
continue to operate under the principles of Responsible Care®,
which include maintaining high levels of performance related
to health, safety, security and the environment, as well as maintaining high standards of ethics and regulatory compliance.
We maintain our high levels of performance by investing in
our operations. As a Responsible Care® company, we believe
investing in our operations is an investment in our people, our
community and the environment.
Addressing Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions
Our approach to managing GHG emissions is proactive.
Our strategies continue to support investment in technology
and projects that drive step-change improvements in energy
efficiency.
The investment in upgrades and technology at our eastern
Canadian assets is a good example of this approach. We are in the
midst of investing almost $500 million to upgrade and improve
our eastern facilities. The modernization projects at our eastern
polyethylene assets are the largest capital projects now underway
in the company.
In early July, the delivery of a new hyper-compressor for the
Moore polyethylene plant replaced a 30-year-old compressor. This
state-of-the-art compressor—a key asset required to make lowdensity polyethylene—will help support ongoing safe and reliable operations, and decrease GHG emissions through improved
energy efficiency.
As well, early in 2007, we completed the last phase of our modernization projects at our Corunna site. Upgraded equipment and
technology have improved the operating efficiency of the site by
15% and will make a direct positive impact on our GHG emissions intensity in the coming years.
Our Actions are Aligned with Our Strategy
We have developed our strategy to reduce the intensity of
GHG emissions to reflect our principles for sustainability and our
commitment to Responsible Care®. Our strategy focuses on:
• New technology to drive step-change in energy efficiency
and GHG intensity reductions. We believe the most effective
solutions to climate change will be achieved through transformational technology that drives step-change improvements
16 • Catalyst Fall 2009
in energy efficiency. Improving and developing new catalysts
that reduce the amount of energy used in various petrochemical processes results in higher efficiency.
• Continuous process improvements in our operations. With
the acquisition of our company by IPIC, we expect greater
opportunities to build on our world-class technology. We continue to invest in projects that improve our manufacturing
capability and energy efficiency, which in turn improve our
GHG emissions profile.
• Partnerships to improve energy efficiency throughout our
product chain. Our commitment to technology and energy
efficiency goes beyond improving our own emissions profile.
Our approach includes pursuing innovative upstream and
downstream partnerships and improving energy efficiency
throughout the product chain—right to the end user.
This strategy has resulted in overall net GHG intensity
improvements.
Our Approach
We believe the issue is global and the solutions must also
be global. GHG emissions and air quality are important public
policy issues and require the involvement of all stakeholders. We
will continue to work cooperatively with others in our industry,
communities and governments to develop and implement effective solutions.
We continue to report our GHG performance data and
encourage stakeholder input and dialogue. Our 2009 Managing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report is available online at
www.novachem.com. This report describes our position on GHG
emissions, demonstrates our ongoing commitment to continuous
improvement and provides an overview of our GHG emissions
performance for 2008.
A
About NOVA
NOVA Chemicals develops and manufactures chemicals, plastic resins and end-products that make everyday
life safer, healthier and easier. Our employees work to
ensure health, safety, security and environmental stewardship through our commitment to sustainability and
Responsible Care®. NOVA Chemicals is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of The International Petroleum Investment
Company (IPIC) of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
Greg Wilkinson is Vice-President, Public & Government
Affairs, NOVA Chemicals.He can be reached at
[email protected].
fun
facts
CHEMISTRY TRANSFORMS ICE CREAM
Using Liquid Nitrogen to Make a Tasty Treat
IN 1999, Wi ll Schroeder and Thomas Paskach were
chemical engineering graduate students at Iowa State
University. They used liquid nitrogen to flash-freeze ice
cream for a science project. Their “instant ice cream,”
which forms in 0.007 seconds at more than 700 km/h,
was a major hit. Much to their surprise, the experiment
became a business for Schroeder and Paskach, now owners
of Nitro Ice Cream—advertised as the “world’s smoothest
ice cream.”
Schroeder and Paskach eventually formed Blue Sky
Creamery (www.blueskycreamery.com). The first retail location opened in Ankeny, Iowa, in 2002. Schroeder says he
was at first reluctant to get into the ice cream business. “We
just thought it’d be cool to get a patent on a resume when we
were going (looking for) jobs. Our degrees weren’t in food
… they were in petroleum and stuff that had nothing to do
with ice cream, but it’s a pretty good way to sell ice cream.”
Schroeder even turned down a job with ExxonMobil as a
research engineer in Texas to pursue his ice-cream dream.
The chemical engineers did some research and discovered that because liquid nitrogen freezes the ice-cream mix
so quickly, it makes the consistency perfect. They took
their product and ice-cream machine—which cost them
upwards of $40,000 to assemble—to their first state fair in
2000 and have been touring the U.S. ever since.
Nitrogen makes up 79% of what humans breathe. But
to make ice cream, nitrogen is cooled and compressed into
a liquid form to obtain the most cooling power possible:
-195.56˚ Celsius. The big trick was figuring out how to arrive
at the proper scooping temperature—about -15˚ C.
Schroeder and Paskach had to ensure their machine
could produce a lot of ice cream safely and quickly. However,
their first machine worked only 20% of the time. They
perfected it by improving the efficiency of the machine to
make upwards of 100 liters of ready-to-eat ice cream per
hour. To save time, Schroeder says they have kept their ice-
“The faster you freeze ice cream, the
smaller the ice crystals are. The Nitro
Freeze process freezes the ice cream in less
than one second, forming exceptionally
small ice crystals. The result is a product
that is just unbelievably smooth.”
Co-inventors Thomas Paskach and Will Schroeder in front of a
Nitro Ice-Cream booth.
cream selection simple, offering one flavor—vanilla—and
only three toppings.
In the past decade, the chemical-engineers-turnedbusinessmen have started distributing and franchising
Blue Sky Creamery nitrogen ice cream across the U.S. and
Canada. They served it at 24 events last year, including the
Calgary Stampede.
Why does Blue Sky Creamery ice cream taste so much
better than regular ice cream?
“Our freezing technology allows us to make the smoothest ice cream on the planet, but also the densest,” Paskach
explains. “Most ice cream is pumped up with air, as much
as 50% by volume. That means when you buy a container
of ice cream, you’re buying a lot of empty space. Blue Sky
Creamery ice cream has virtually NO air in it. That means
you get more in a pint of our ice cream than in any other
brand. Our ice cream is the smoothest because of the speed
of freezing. When you make ice cream, you’re freezing the
water that is part of the milk and the cream in the recipe,
forming small ice crystals. The larger these crystals are, the
more ‘grainy’ or ‘icy’ the ice cream will taste. The faster you
freeze ice cream, the smaller the ice crystals are. The Nitro
Freeze process freezes the ice cream in less than one second,
forming exceptionally small ice crystals. The result is a product that is just unbelievably smooth.”
A
Sources: The Calgary Herald, www.blueskycreamery.com
Catalyst Fall 2009 • 17
BUYERS’GUIDE
AND INDEX TO
ADVERTISERS
BLENDING BLADES & MIXING EQUIPMENT
Conn and Company, LLC .........................................6
BULK SHIPPING
PDI .........................................................................4
CHEMICAL & SERVICE PROVIDERS
NOVA Chemicals (Mktg Communications).................6
CHEMICAL PRODUCERS
Imperial Oil Ltd, Chemicals ............outside back cover
MEGlobal International FZE .............. inside front cover
NOVA Chemicals (Mktg Communications).................6
CHEMICALS - FORMULATING & PACKAGING
NOVA Chemicals (Mktg Communications).................6
CHLOR ALKALI CHEMICALS
Olin Chlor Alkali Products.......................................15
CUSTOM COMPOUNDS & CHEMICAL ADDITIVES
NOVA Chemicals (Mktg Communications).................6
DANGEROUS GOODS COMPLIANCE
ICC The Compliance Center .....................................4
Nalco has been doing business in Canada for nearly 70 years.
Essential Expertise
for Water, Energy and AirSM
Nalco Canada Co. Headquarters
1055 Truman Street
Burlington, Ontario L7R 3V7
Tel: +1-905-632-8791
Fax: +1-905-632-0849
Customer Service
+1-800-265-5059 (English)
+1-800-265-5977 (French)
Nalco Canada Co.
Water & Process Services
1055 Truman Street
Burlington, Ontario L7R 3V7
Tel: +1-905-632-8791
Fax: +1-905-632-0849
750 boul. Pierre-Bertrand
Suite 180
Québec, QC G1M 3L2
Tel: +1-418-683-8000
Fax: +1-418 681-5377
Nalco Canada Co.
Energy Services
180, 3553 - 31 Street N.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2L 2K7
Tel: +1-403-284-6275
Fax: +1-403-282-2926
1149 Vanier Road, Unit 3
Sarnia, ON N7S 3Y6
Tel: +1-877-631-5299
Fax: +1-519-332-8297
Corporate Headquarters
Nalco Company
1601 W. Diehl Road
Naperville, IL 60563-1198 U.S.A.
Tel: 1-630-305-1000
Fax: 1-630-305-2900
www.nalco.com
We are the leading provider of integrated water
treatment and process improvement services, chemicals,
and equipment programs for industrial and institutional
applications. Our Energy Services division provides onsite,
technology-driven solutions to natural gas, petroleum
and petrochemical industries. In addition to recovery,
production and process enhancements, we also deliver a
full range of water treatment offerings to reÀneries and
petrochemical plants.
HAZMAT TRAINING
Canadian Emergency Response Contractors’
Alliance (CERCA) ..............................................18
Envirotec .................................................................6
IMPORTERS/EXPORTERS OF CHEMICALS
VJCHEM Canada Inc..............................................10
PLASTICS
NOVA Chemicals (Mktg Communications).................6
PROCESS AIDS - PLASTIC
NOVA Chemicals (Mktg Communications).................6
PROCESS CONTROL EQUIPMENT
NOVA Chemicals (Mktg Communications).................6
PUMPS, INDUSTRIAL
Lutz Pumps, Inc. ...................................................15
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
GATX Rail Canada ................................................. 12
TRANSPORTATION
Harold Marcus Ltd. ................................................ 12
TRUCKING FIRMS
Northwest Tank Lines ......................inside back cover
Essential Expertise
for Water, Energy and Air.SM
WATER TREATMENT
Nalco Canada Co...................................................18
Vision
Our goal is to earn customers for life and enhance the
lives of our employees while protecting the planet.
Mission
Our mission is to lead the industry in creating value for
customers and Nalco through differentiated services
and technologies that save water and energy, enhance
production and improve air quality while reducing total
costs of operation.
Commitments
Our shared commitments to:
• Safety and Ethics – We conduct our business in a
safe, lawful and secure way and act with integrity
and honesty in all we do. We ensure a culture
that requires action when a potentially unsafe or
unethical situation occurs.
• Essential Expertise – We create value for our
customers, shareholders, and communities through
the application of our knowledge and technical
innovation.
• Sustainable Development – We develop solutions and
conduct our operations in a way that saves water and
energy, preserves natural resources and improves
air quality—beneÀting the planet, the economy and
society.
Being safe is a core value.
Making Safety Personal
is your responsibility.
18 • Catalyst Fall 2009
437532_Nalco.indd 1
8/4/09 9:41:42
435639_Canadian.indd
AM
1
6/29/09 8:44:06 AM
Why We Care. We execute the most principled business practices because we care about who we partner with.
We
embrace very strict sustainability guidelines as a verified Responsible Care partner because we care about the people in the
communities we travel through. We are proud of our rigorous hiring criteria and employee standards because we care about the
people who work for Northwest and their profound effect on our customers. Why do we care? We care because people are at the
heart of what we do every day at Northwest.
TransCAER
Life is a delicate balance…
Imperial opened land on a former refinery site in Mississauga, Ontario, to help complete a
public trail along the shore of Lake Ontario.
When we manufacture and sell our products, we work to avoid
upsetting that balance. It’s part of the Responsible Care initiative. It
includes our commitment to develop products that minimize risk to
people and to educate them on their use. Energy and petrochemicals
are essential to economic growth; however their production and
consumption need not conflict with protecting health and safety or with
safeguarding the environment.
CHEMICAL
ISO 9000/14000
ISO 9000/14000
Responsible Care®
Beyond what’s required.
*Trademarks of Imperial Oil Limited. Imperial Oil, licensee. ®Trademark of the Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association. Used under license by Imperial Oil.