Proposal for Reporting of Pollutant Releases from Hydraulic Fracturing and Solvent-Assisted in situ Bitumen Extraction

Environmental petition 317 was submitted to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada by Environmental Defence, Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique, and West Coast Environmental Law Association on June 22, 2011. The petition is titled Shale Gas Fracking and In Situ Oil Sands Chemicals and the National Pollutant Release Inventory: Public Disclosure Needed. This petition deals with the specific issue of whether companies injecting chemicals into the ground for hydraulic fracturing and/or in situ oil sands extraction are legally required to report those activities to the NPRI. Environment Canada responded to the petition on October 25, 2011, indicating that the Department is reviewing NPRI reporting requirements for the oil and gas sector and will consider this proposal for a change to NPRI requirements as part of this review.

Environment Canada developed a proposed path forward in response to Petition 317 and consultation on this path forward was conducted with the NPRI Multi-Stakeholder Work Group and the public from January 9, 2014 to February 8, 2014.

After considering the comments received, Environment Canada has decided to proceed with the proposed path forward for the 2014 reporting year, and changes are reflected in the 2014-2015 NPRI Canada Gazette notice



Consultation Document: Environment Canada’s Proposed Path Forward

 

1         Introduction

1.1       The National Pollutant Release Inventory

The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) is Canada's legislated, publicly accessible inventory of pollutant releases (to air, water and land), disposals and transfers for recycling. It captures data from approximately 8,000 facilities from a variety of industrial sectors. The NPRI reporting requirements are published in the Canada Gazette, Part I Notice with respect to substances in the National Pollutant Release Inventory. In general, facilities that have the equivalent of 10 or more full-time employees, or where specified activities take place, are required to report to the NPRI if they meet the substance criteria.

Over 300 substances are listed on the NPRI, including many substances assessed to be “toxic” according to the criteria of section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999), air pollutants and other substances of concern. An overview of NPRI reporting requirements and thresholds for substances is available in the Annual Guide for Reporting to the NPRI.

1.2       Proposal for NPRI Reporting of Pollutant Releases from Hydraulic Fracturing and Solvent-Assisted in situ Bitumen Extraction

Environment Canada has been undertaking a broad review of NPRI reporting requirements for the oil and gas industry.  In conjunction with this, on June 22, 2011, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada received an environmental petition from Environmental Defence, Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique, and West Coast Environmental Law Association titled Shale Gas Fracking and In Situ Oil Sands Chemicals and the National Pollutant Release Inventory: Public Disclosure Needed. The petition requests “that companies be required to report substances released through (a) Using fluids for hydraulic fracturing in wells to extract shale gas; and (b) Injection of substances into wells for in situ tar sands extraction, on the NPRI by revising the NPRI reporting criteria so that these activities are captured”.

In response to the environmental petition received, Environment Canada is assessing the issues raised as the first phase of the broader oil and gas sector review.  The Department expects to determine whether changes are warranted, in response to this petition, by March 2014.

2         Hydraulic Fracturing Activities

2.1       Status: Hydraulic Fracturing and the NPRI

Hydraulic fracturing activities are not currently required to be reported to the NPRI because facilities used exclusively for oil and gas exploration or the drilling of oil or gas wells are exempt from NPRI reporting requirements. In addition, facilities that conduct well drilling and completion activities (including hydraulic fracturing) do not generally meet the NPRI employee threshold. Environment Canada has considered the removal of the exemption for drilling, and the employee threshold for hydraulic fracturing activities, in order to capture facilities that do hydraulic fracturing. It was found that in many cases the changes would not result in reporting of potential releases and disposals of NPRI substances in hydraulic fracturing fluid because, based on the information currently available, the substances do not appear to be used in quantities that would meet the thresholds to trigger reporting.

While alternate reporting requirements could be developed for the sector, more information is required to determine if significant releases of NPRI substances to the environment are occurring from hydraulic fracturing activities. In addition, more information is needed to determine what the appropriate threshold would be to capture potential releases and disposals from this activity, and to determine what the impacts would be on other industrial sectors that use or release these substances.

In order to fill information gaps, there are ongoing activities at Environment Canada and in the provinces related to hydraulic fracturing, to provide more information on the identity of the substances and quantities used in hydraulic fracturing fluid and potential releases, as well as to increase public disclosure of substances used. These activities will contribute to identifying the substances and quantities used in hydraulic fracturing fluid and potential releases. Any new findings from these initiatives will be considered to determine if additional reporting may be appropriate in the future.

As such, Environment Canada’s proposed path forward is to:

  1. Make no changes to the NPRI reporting criteria specific to hydraulic fracturing activities; and
  2. Continue assessing new information as it becomes available to determine if additional reporting may be appropriate in the future.

2.2       Background and Additional Considerations

Once a well has been drilled for the purpose of production, it needs to be prepared for production or “completed”. This process includes well stimulation (one method being hydraulic fracturing) and installing production equipment. Hydraulic fracturing is a stimulation technique which pumps pressured fluid down a well into a formation containing oil and gas. When the pumping pressure is relieved, the fluid flows back to the surface, while a portion remains underground in the formation. This remaining portion slowly returns to surface as well production begins. Well drilling and hydraulic fracturing activities usually occur only once or a few times during the life of a well. If hydraulic fracturing activities were required to be reported to the NPRI, the facilities would not generally report to the NPRI on an ongoing basis but only for those years in which fracturing occurred. The time-limited nature of these activities makes them difficult to capture through an annual, facility-based reporting program like the NPRI.

An additional consideration is that the identity of the substances used in hydraulic fracturing fluid may be considered proprietary information. Sections 51-53 of CEPA 1999 provide criteria for Environment Canada to determine whether to accept or reject requests to treat information reported under the NPRI as confidential.

3         Solvent-Assisted in situ Bitumen Extraction

3.1       Status: In situ Bitumen Extraction and the NPRI

Under the current reporting requirements, underground releases of solvents used for in situ bitumen extraction are required to be reported to the NPRI if the substances are listed in the NPRI notice and if the specified mass and concentration thresholds are met. However, in evaluating the request from the environmental petition and analysing NPRI data, it was found that although some in situ facilities report underground disposals, they do not generally report underground releases to the NPRI. Therefore, while no changes to the actual NPRI reporting requirements are required to capture in situ bitumen extraction activities, it is proposed to clarify the requirements to ensure the collection of data on releases of substances underground.

The Notice currently requires reporting on three land release categories (spills; leaks; and other releases to land that are not disposals), which Environment Canada considers to include underground releases, as well as underground injection for the purposes of disposal.  Environment Canada intends to explicitly state in the NPRI notice that starting with the 2014 reporting year, underground releases are required to be reported. An option that is being explored is to modify the title of the third category to “other releases to land that are not disposals, including underground releases”.

Therefore, Environment Canada’s proposed path forward is to:

  • Make it explicit in the NPRI notice that underground releases are to be reported, starting with the 2014 reporting year. This requirement will apply to all facilities and not only oil sands facilities.

3.2       Background and Additional Considerations

In situ bitumen extraction techniques are used to extract bitumen from oil sands that is located more than 75 metres deep, which represents about 80% of the Canadian oil sands reserve. In situ facilities use processes requiring the injection of steam into underground reservoirs; heating-up the viscous bitumen to make it flow more easily. More recently, solvents are being used in combination with steam in an attempt to increase energy efficiency and oil recovery, while reducing water consumption. To maximize these gains, various solvent-assisted extraction techniques are currently being tried and evaluated. Due to the fact that these techniques are developing technologies, substances used as solvents, and their quantities, are still evolving. Consequently, as with hydraulic fracturing, the identity of some substances used in in situ bitumen extraction may be considered proprietary information.

Assuming that all solvent is not recovered when the bitumen is pumped out, an underground release of the solvent is likely occurring. In reporting underground releases from solvent-assisted in situ bitumen extraction, the recovery of solvents over time could be taken into account in order to get an accurate depiction of releases to the environment. One option to take into account the recovery of underground releases could be to allow reporting of the quantities recovered during a particular reporting year along with the quantities released.

 


Summary of Stakeholder Comments and Environment Canada's Response

The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) Multi-Stakeholder Work Group (WG) and the public provided input on Environment Canada’s proposed path forward to address the proposal for reporting of pollutant releases from hydraulic fracturing and solvent-assisted in situ bitumen extraction. After reviewing stakeholder input, Environment Canada has decided to proceed with the proposed path forward for the 2014 NPRI reporting year, as follows:

  • To make no changes to the NPRI specific to hydraulic fracturing activities, and continue assessing new information as it becomes available to determine if the addition of reporting may be appropriate in the future; and
  • To explicitly state the requirement for reporting to the NPRI on underground releases, to ensure reporting on underground releases of solvents used for the extraction of bitumen at in situ oil sands facilities.

The table below summarizes comments received from the WG and the public and provides Environment Canada’s responses.

Comments were received from the following stakeholders:

  • Assembly of First Nations
  • Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
  • Citizens’ Network on Waste Management & International Institute of Concern for Public Health (joint comment)
  • Council of Canadians Northwest Territories Chapter
  • Council of Canadians Quill Plains Chapter
  • Ecojustice
  • Ecology Action Centre
  • Fort Nelson First Nation
  • Mining Watch
  • Rivershed Society of British Columbia
  • West Coast Environmental Law
  • 739 emails originating from an online letter from the West Coast Environmental Law
  • 209 emails originating from an online letter from the Wilderness Committee
  • 11 comments from members of the general public

 

Summary of Stakeholder Comments Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing and Environment Canada's Responses
TopicCommentEnvironment Canada Response
1. SupportAgree with Environment Canada’s decision to make no changes to the NPRI reporting criteria as they relate to hydraulic fracturing.Support for Environment Canada’s proposal on hydraulic fracturing is acknowledged.
2. NPRI Reporting Program Overall

The NPRI should not have thresholds for employees or substances, or exemptions that limit reporting of releases.

Releases from smaller sources are needed to have an accurate picture of releases and cumulative effects.

Some of the main purposes of the NPRI are community right-to-know and to help government make policy and regulatory decisions.

The NPRI is a key tool for identifying and monitoring sources of pollution in Canada, but it does not provide information on all pollutants or every source of pollution. Data from a number of sources, in addition to the NPRI, may be used to have a more comprehensive picture of pollutant releases and to assess and manage environmental impacts.

The NPRI collects information from industrial, commercial, institutional and other facilities that meet certain reporting requirements. These reporting requirements are based on the number of employees at the facility; the quantity of the substance(s) manufactured, processed, used or released and the type of activities performed at the facility. (For more information on these reporting criteria, see the NPRI Reporting Tools and Guidance.)

Reporting is required for over 300 substances that are included on the NPRI substance list.

The employee and substance thresholds have been established at a level to capture the most significant sources of releases of NPRI substances without posing an unreasonable burden on facilities that have to report. This threshold is generally 10 tonnes for the quantity manufactured, processed or otherwise used at the facility, but may be lower for certain specified substances that have potential for environmental and human health impacts at relatively low levels.

The Guidelines for the use of Section 46 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999) describes how “significant” can be characterized. The concept relates not only to the proportionate quantity of a substance released by facilities reporting to the NPRI, but also to the potential for health or environmental impacts.

3. NPRI requirements for hydraulic fracturing (activity)

Hydraulic fracturing activities should no longer be excluded from reporting to the NPRI.

While Environment Canada promises to continue assessing new information, Canadians want information on hydraulic fracturing now.

All hydraulic fracturing operations should not be exempt simply because many smaller operations may be below the NPRI thresholds.

At least 27 of the chemicals commonly used in fracturing are on the NPRI list and are associated with human health impacts.

Environment Canada’s “currently available” information is incomplete, given that the Department has not been systematically collecting fracking data.

The employee threshold should be removed for hydraulic fracturing operations.

It is critical to collect information on which chemicals are being injected into the ground and not recovered.

While a new reporting system might be useful, until Environment Canada has one in place, the NPRI should apply as widely as possible to hydraulic fracturing operations.

The existence of the reporting regime in British Columbia called FracFocus is proof that a mandatory national reporting regime under the NPRI is possible.

Environment Canada has drawn on administrative barriers as an excuse to do nothing.

Facilities used exclusively for oil and gas exploration or the drilling of oil or gas wells are exempt from reporting to the NPRI. In addition, facilities with less than the equivalent of 10 full-time employees are generally required to report on only a limited number of air pollutants. Exceptions to the employee threshold criterion have been made on a sector-specific basis for activities that release significant quantities of NPRI substances to the environment.

Environment Canada has considered removing the exemption and making a sector-specific change to the employee threshold for hydraulic fracturing activities. Environment Canada has reviewed available information, including data collected from industry on a voluntary basis on the quantity of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing in Canada as well as publicly available information such as FracFocus.

Available data suggests that in most cases, even if the exemption was removed and an exception made to the employee threshold for hydraulic fracturing, the quantities of NPRI substances used at individual wells are unlikely to meet the existing reporting thresholds for individual substances.

Work is continuing within Environment Canada to better understand the composition of fracturing fluids. In addition, Environment Canada is currently evaluating the recent report from the Council of Canadian Academies. The results of these efforts will be taken into account in the coming years to determine whether regular, mandatory federal reporting on hydraulic fracturing would be warranted, and if so, whether reporting to the NPRI on hydraulic fracturing would be appropriate.

4. NPRI requirements for hydraulic fracturing (substances)

Lower the chemical usage thresholds and incorporate the chemicals used into the NPRI.

Chemical additives and substances used in hydraulic fracturing have been associated with various human health concerns.

The NPRI substance list has been developed over many years, and includes over 300 substances. Environment Canada has an established process for modifying the NPRI, including criteria and considerations for adding substances and determining if a reduced threshold is appropriate.

Given that NPRI substances and thresholds apply to all reporting facilities, reducing thresholds for certain substances used in hydraulic fracturing activities or adding substances used in fracturing fluids would also impact facilities in other industrial sectors that use or release these substances. More analysis is required before such additions could be considered.

5. NPRI exemption for oil and gas explorationHydraulic fracturing is not drilling or exploration for oil, and Environment Canada’s opinion that these activities are exempted from the NPRI is inconsistent with an earlier statement from Environment Canada’s response to Environmental Petition No. 317 that “there is no specific exemption related to shale gas operations”. Hydraulic fracturing occurs post-drilling.

While there is no specific exemption related to operating wells that are producing oil or gas (from shale formations or otherwise), they do not generally meet the NPRI reporting requirements for number of employees and substance quantities.

Prior to operation, the exemption for oil and gas exploration and drilling applies. Hydraulic fracturing is typically part of the well completion phase, which occurs after drilling and prior to the well starting to produce oil or gas. Environment Canada considers that all activities from initial exploration until the well is put into production, including hydraulic fracturing, fall under the exemption. This approach is consistent with the initial intent of the change to the NPRI in 2003 that removed the exemption for "operation" of oil and gas facilities (i.e. wells producing oil or gas), but maintained the exemption for activities before production. It is also consistent with the approach for most other types of facilities under the NPRI, where reporting is only required once production starts.

6. Proprietary Information

The non-disclosure of “proprietary information” on substances is unacceptable. If this is permitted for hydraulic fracturing, it is not fair to other industrial sectors required to report to the NPRI.

The chemicals and their concentration should be released publicly and companies should look to patents to maintain their corporate advantage.

The reporting of NPRI substances utilized during exploration and drilling can likely be done in a way that protects the exact formula of fracking fluids while quantities of NPRI substances released are reported.

It should be possible to get an understanding of releases, while allowing confidential data to be used for government use only.

The confidentiality provisions in section 51 to 53 of CEPA 1999 would apply to all information collected under section 46 of CEPA 1999. These provisions provide the reasons on which such requests may be based, and the criteria to determine whether to accept or reject the request. If the Minister accepts the request for confidentiality, the information would not be published but would be available for use within Environment Canada. If the Minister rejects the request, the information would be released publicly.
7. Transparency

Hydraulic fracturing operations should be required to fully disclose the chemical composition and volumes of fracking fluids and resulting releases, disposals, and transfers.

While BC and Alberta have disclosure of fracking chemicals, the rest of the country requires information about fracking and pollution.

The NPRI is an inventory of releases to the environment by individual facilities and is not intended to register the quantities of chemicals used by a specific sector.

FracFocus is a public disclosure tool of chemicals used by hydraulic fracturing operations in Alberta and British Columbia, where most hydraulic fracturing activities are occurring. New Brunswick has indicated that they will also require disclosure through FracFocus or a similar reporting mechanism. The National Energy Board has also recently required the use of FracFocus for oil and gas activity on federal lands.

As described in response #3 above, work is underway to better understand the composition of fracturing fluids. The results of this work will be taken into account to determine whether reporting on chemicals in fracturing fluids may be appropriate in the future.

8. Duties of the Government of CanadaAs stated in CEPA 1999, there are specific duties of the Government in the administration of the Act, including the application of the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, and promotes and reinforces enforceable pollution prevention approaches.

Environment Canada is working to better understand the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing.

In collaboration with industry, Environment Canada has collected information on substances used in hydraulic fracturing in Canada and the methods for their handling, storage and disposal.

At the request of Environment Canada, the Council of Canadian Academies conducted a science‑based assessment of the environmental impacts of shale gas development and production and associated mitigation options. The report was released in May 2014. Environment Canada is currently reviewing the assessment to determine the implications for the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada is also conducting a number of other studies related to hydraulic fracturing that will provide valuable information to inform assessment activities (seismicity, air emissions and impacts on surface and groundwater), but are not specifically related to chemicals.

As new information becomes available, it will be considered to determine whether NPRI reporting on hydraulic fracturing would be appropriate. These potential changes would be considered in accordance with the established process for modifying the NPRI.

9. TimingGiven the reporting requirements are drafted yearly and published as a notice, and are not part of the Act or any regulation under the Act, there are few barriers to making these changes quickly, as soon as 2015.Regarding the annual publication of reporting requirements, the NPRI Canada Gazette notices are now being published for two years at a time to increase stability and predictability of the requirements. Therefore, the notice published in May 2014 applies for the 2014 and 2015 reporting years, and the subsequent notice will be published for the 2016 and 2017 reporting years.
10. Duplicative reportingThere is potential for duplicative reporting with current provincial requirements. Environment Canada should consider opportunities to align with existing regulatory efforts in mandatory reporting of additives used for hydraulic fracturing to provide the public with this information.Current reporting obligations from other jurisdictions were considered in the evaluation of this proposal. If NPRI reporting on hydraulic fracturing activities is deemed appropriate in the future, the potential for duplicative reporting and possible opportunities for alignment with existing reporting would be considered.
11. Large number of facilities to be reported for short-term activitiesThere is potential for requiring a large number of wells to be reported to the NPRI as facilities, for which hydraulic fracturing takes place over a short period of time.

One of the additional considerations when making changes to the NPRI is the value of the information versus the cost of obtaining it and making it available through the NPRI.

These factors were considered in the evaluation of this proposal, and will also be considered if NPRI reporting on hydraulic fracturing activities is deemed appropriate in the future.

12. The recovery of the fluid.Additives tend to make up less than 1% of the fracture fluids and much of the fluid that is injected is recovered and, when possible, the fluid may be stored, treated and re-used.The low concentration of the substances in the fracturing fluids and the recovery and reuse of the fluids/chemicals was considered in the evaluation of this proposal.
13. NPRI requirements for hydraulic fracturingThe requirements for reporting substances released through using fluids for hydraulic fracturing should apply to the extraction of shale oil in addition to the extraction of shale gas.Although the requested change was specific to hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas, all hydraulic fracturing activities were considered.
14. Air emissions

The emissions from transportation and emissions from generators that power the equipment used in the extraction process should also be considered for reporting.

The concentration of chemicals contained in the waste water holding pools should also be collected to help determine how much of an aerosol risk these chemicals could pose to humans and the environment.

These factors were considered in the evaluation of this proposal, and will also be considered if NPRI reporting on hydraulic fracturing activities is deemed appropriate in the future.

Environment Canada and Health Canada are collaborating with the province of New Brunswick on a three year study of the air quality impacts of shale gas development. The study will collect baseline data as well as air quality monitoring as shale gas is developed.

15. Other

Numerous comments were received regarding more general issues or concerns with hydraulic fracturing, but that do not pertain directly to the NPRI. These comments include:

• that hydraulic fracturing should be subject to a moratorium, at least until more protections are in place, or stopped entirely in Canada;

• that Environment Canada should develop federal regulations that will require full disclosure of the chemicals used by the industry.

• fracking chemicals should be known and available on the NPRI so that emergency responders and others are aware of chemicals they have to clean and the protection they have to wear.

• that more sustainable and long-term energy sources should be considered instead of extraction of gas using hydraulic fracturing;

• concerns with the integrity of well casings that may allow contamination to escape;

• concerns that there is inadequate treatment and management of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing; and

• concerns about impacts of fracturing on groundwater, watersheds, drinking water, air, land, ecosystems, seismic activity, human health, and workplace safety, and transportation of chemicals.

These comments are beyond the scope of the NPRI review of hydraulic fracturing, and are not specifically addressed in this response. Environment Canada will consider this input as it continues to better understand the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing.

It should also be noted that in Canada, oil and gas exploration and extraction primarily falls under provincial jurisdiction, except on federal lands.

 

Summary of Stakeholder Comments Regardging in situ Bitumen Extraction and Environment Canada's Responses
TopicCommentResponse
1. Support

Agree that oil sands operations should be required to report on underground discharge of chemicals.

This addition is important for community right-to-know and to help government make policy and regulatory decisions.

Support for Environment Canada’s proposal on in situ bitumen extraction is acknowledged.
2. Chemicals and thresholds

Environment Canada should incorporate all the chemicals used by in situ bitumen extraction into the NPRI.

The usage thresholds should be evaluated to determine if they need to be lowered to fully capture the use of chemicals for this process.

The NPRI substance list has been developed over many years, and includes over 300 substances. Environment Canada has an established process for modifying the NPRI, including criteria and considerations for adding substances and determining if a reduced threshold is appropriate.

If new information becomes available that suggests that the NPRI criteria would be met for substance addition or threshold reduction, these changes would be considered in accordance with the established process for modifying the NPRI.

3. EnforcementIf compliance does not improve, enforcement measures should be taken.The 2014 and 2015 NPRI notice makes explicit the requirement to report on underground releases. Any compliance issues related to the NPRI are dealt with in accordance with Environment Canada’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy for CEPA 1999.
4. Alignment with existing reportingPublic information about total solvent injection and production is available. Annual reporting of solvent injection, measurement and impact recovery also occurs. Additional analysis is required on the opportunity to align existing provincial efforts with Environment Canada objectives and to harmonize terminology.Environment Canada considers that underground releases are included under the existing NPRI requirement to report on land releases. As such, this is not a change to the requirements, but a clarification of existing requirements. Opportunities to align NPRI reporting with existing provincial reporting requirements will be considered, as appropriate.
5. Reporting issues

The majority of the solvents are recovered and re-used as a closed loop process, rather than a release or permanent underground disposal. Solvent injection could be considered an onsite use of an NPRI substance until production ceases, at which point any un-recovered solvent could be considered a permanent onsite disposal.

Reporting at the point of injection without having the capability of accurately estimating the recovery volumes would result in an artificially high “reported use” rate, resulting in inaccurate environmental or health risk assessments. Reporting net solvent injection within a given calendar year would result in over-reporting of the permanently-injected solvent.

Further discussion regarding the technology of this form of production is warranted to better clarify the issues.

Environment Canada will consider issues such as the technical aspects of the process and recovery of substances, to ensure that the reporting is effective and the reported values are not misleading.

It is important to distinguish underground releases from underground disposals, which are currently reported under the category of underground injection. To be considered a disposal under the NPRI, the deposit of the substance must be intended as a means of final disposal of the substance. In the case of using solvents for in situ oil sands extraction, the intent of depositing the solvents underground is not disposal of the solvents but to increase the recovery of bitumen. It is expected that these releases be reported under the category “other releases to land that are not disposals”.

6. TimingThe industry would like to discuss the best approach to reporting final disposal of solvents used and suggest that this be included in Phase 2 of the NPRI Oil and Gas Sector review.Environment Canada is proceeding with its proposed path forward for the 2014 reporting year and will continue to consider the best approach for collecting and publishing this information.
7. Applicability to all facilitiesBecause the proposal includes applicability to all facilities, a fulsome analysis will be required to determine impacts and benefits of the proposal.The explicit requirement to report on underground releases is intended to be applicable to all facilities. Additional analysis of the impacts and benefits of this requirement is not required because this is simply a clarification of the existing requirement that, under NPRI, facilities that meet the criteria for a listed substance should be reporting on all releases of that substance. Releases include the currently listed categories of releases to air, surface waters and land (including surface or underground releases).

 

Date modified: