Second report of the National Pollutant Release Inventory working group 2001 to 2002: chapter 7

7. Other Issues Arising

• 7.1 Other Issues to be Considered by the Current WG
• 7.1.1 Alternate Threshold Framework
• 7.1.2 Substances Deferred for the 2003 Reporting Year
• 7.1.3 Acetone
• 7.1.4 Mining Exemption
• 7.1.5 Treatment of Land-filling, Land-farming and Underground Injection
• 7.1.6 Continuing Efforts to Maximize Harmonization with Provincial Initiatives
• 7.1.7 Data Verification Protocol
• 7.1.8 Guidance for Reporters
• 7.2 Additional Proposed Agenda Items

7.1 Other Issues to be Considered by the Current WG

Note: The word "Other" in the title of this Section is in recognition of the fact that outstanding issues in relation speciation, UOG and GHGs have already been summarized in the sections of the report that deal with those issues (sections 2.4, 3.4 and 5.4, respectively).

7.1.1 Alternate Threshold Framework

Reporting for the majority of substances currently listed on the NPRI is triggered when the substance is MPO in quantities equal to or greater than 10 tonnes. However, there is a growing list of NPRI substances that have an alternate threshold (ATH); and many of the substances that are being or will be added in future will require an ATH. The ATH framework is a document being developed by the WG to establish a consistent basis for determining the need for an ATH for a given substance, and for establishing appropriate thresholds. When complete, the ATH framework will be integrated as part of the process for modifying the NPRI. (It is worth noting that in acknowledgement of the fact that CACs and GHGs are different in nature than the majority of other substances that might require ATHs, it was agreed that they not be considered in the initial work of developing the framework,)

An initial draft of the WG’s proposed ATH framework had been included as an Annex in the draft of the First Report of this WG that was released for public review and comment (June 24, 2001). Since then, some additional work has taken place within a SG of the WG to finalize the framework. While much of the framework is essentially complete (and in fact, some elements have already been adopted by EC), the issue of whether and how to use the limit of quantification (LoQ) as a threshold requires further consideration. More significantly, the WG believes that the work currently being undertaken by EC to develop substance hazard charts has a bearing on the framework; and members have therefore requested an opportunity to provide input on this work. The ATH SG is scheduled to conference in August to review progress on the hazard charts, and to determine next steps towards finalizing the framework. The SG will provide a status report to the WG at its September meeting.

In the meantime, there was concern expressed by some WG members about a possible hold up in the development of ATHs for substances under consideration (see the next subsection for examples). The WG generally agreed that assuming science supports the probable need for an ATH for a substance under consideration, the review/consultation process should proceed as usual, even if the ATH framework has not been finalized.

7.1.2 Substances Deferred for the 2003 Reporting Year

A number of substances that had been proposed for addition or listing changes for the 2003 reporting year were deferred due to lack of time and/or adequate information/analysis. These include nickel, beryllium, barium and thallium. One of these substances (nickel) is currently on the NPRI but requires an ATH. The others are up for consideration as additions the NPRI, either at the standard 10 tonne MPO threshold or at an ATH. Some WG members were very concerned about delaying these items for another year. It was acknowledged, however, that the NPRI process requires that the larger stakeholder community have opportunity to comment on changes in the NPRI before they are made; and for this reason, the changes noted above cannot be made for the 2003 reporting year. However, in order to avoid further delays, it was agreed that work would proceed through the summer so that there would be solid information (in the form of submittal forms) for the WG to consider at its September meeting. Recommendations on these substances, to take effect for the 2004 reporting year, will be forthcoming from the WG in its next report.

7.1.3 Acetone

The WG representative of the MOEE and the ENGO representatives recommend that for regional air-quality modelling purposes, acetone be re-introduced to the NPRI. They recommend that reporting be limited to emissions to air, with a 3 tonne MPO threshold (in keeping with the MOEE’s approach). Acetone had been removed from the NPRI as of the 1999 reporting year. The argument for its re-introduction hinges on the fact that acetone contributes to ground-level ozone and PM.

Some WG members suggested that this issue raises a larger question of the adequacy of EC’s VOC definition (which parallels that used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). This definition is based only on reactivity, and does not take into account the role in ozone and PM formation.

Based on this definition, acetone is not a VOC. Industry members of the WG also hold that the same process should apply to the re-introduction of acetone as for any other substances proposed for addition to the NPRI, with a review against the established decision-factors. They also indicate a need for consultation with the industrial sectors that would be affected.

EC intends to publish additional information on this issue prior to the WG’s September meeting, and will give consideration to the need to revisit the VOC definition.

7.1.4 Mining Exemption

Mining activities (but not processing of mined materials) are currently exempted from NPRI reporting. The question of the rationale for the mining exemption has arisen numerous times during NPRI consultations in recent years; and the WG agrees on the need to review whether this exemption should to continue to stand. ENGO members of the WG note that they have never understood the rationale for the exemption, and that it constitutes a major gap in the NPRI reporting structure. (In a letter to Minister Anderson that was circulated to the WG, the Pembina Institute noted that the exemption was removed from the U.S. Toxic Release Inventory beginning in 1998, and that the metal mining sector has since emerged as the larges source of total on- and of-site releases of TRI substances.) They believe that the issue should now be addressed on an urgent basis, in time for any recommended changes to be included for the 2003 reporting year. EC has indicated that there is not enough time or information on the table to do so; and suggests that it be addressed as part of the 2003 NPRI consultation process, with any resulting changes to take effect for the 2004 reporting year. ENGOs request that EC give the issue detailed attention in the immediate future, so as not to risk further delays.

7.1.5 Treatment of Land-filling, Land-farming and Underground Injection

Questions related to whether substances treated through on-site land-filling and land-farming are fairly categorized as releases, and whether there is any legitimate basis for the distinction in how on-site and off-site activities are categorized (i.e., release versus transfer), have also been raised numerous times during consultations in recent years. Underground injection/sequestration is a similar issue. The WG had intended to consider this issue earlier in the year, via some initial work by a subset of members. This work is now scheduled to proceed over the summer, and the participating members will bring recommendations on this issue to the WG in September.

7.1.6 Continuing Efforts to Maximize Harmonization with Provincial Initiatives

WG members strongly support better communication -- and some degree of integration -- between the consultation/decision-making processes of EC’s NPRI, and those of the Ontario MOEE in relation to its Airborne Contaminant Discharge Monitoring and Reporting Regulation. WG members requested to see the workplan for the pilot process between EC and the MOEE as soon as possible, so they can determine whether any upcoming initiatives warrant their input. The WG also called for improved coordination with other jurisdictions. As a counterpoint, however, it was noted that too much emphasis on trying to engage provinces in harmonization could bog down the relatively efficient NPRI consultation process. Coordination with other jurisdictions is an ongoing issue, and EC will attempt to continue to provide regular updates to the WG, with opportunities for input.

7.1.7 Data Verification Protocol

A protocol for compliance promotion for the NPRI program staff, for compliance promotion purposes, is under development. (At the same time, a protocol for EC inspectors for regulatory enforcement purposes is also under development.) It is intended that in addition to compliance promotion, the protocol will allow an overall qualitative and quantitative assessment of the submitted data. It will also help identify needed improvements in the guidance interpretation and software products, and the need for development of specific guidance manuals. Because MOEE is currently developing a draft auditing protocol for Regulation 127/01, EC and MOEE are working to ensure consistency in the protocols. Both industry and ENGO members of the WG have indicated to EC their interest in participating in the development of the protocol. To this end, they have requested additional information.

7.1.8 Guidance for Reporters

Guidance is under development to support a number of recent changes to the NPRI. EC will circulate the draft guidance for NPRI reporting from wastewater treatment facilities before the WG’s meeting in September. EC also expects to be able to provide additional information on the status of guidance for CAC reporting at the September meeting of the WG. Finally, pollution prevention categories in the guidance developed by EC’s National Office of Pollution Prevention have been changed in accordance with last year’s Canada Gazette notice. By mid-July this revised guidance will be sent to WG members for comment.

7.2 Additional Proposed Agenda Items

Other issues currently on the NPRI master list of possible changes for future consideration, or which some WG members would like to see added to the master list, include:

• Mobile sources: Some WG members have suggested that facility-based mobile source emissions should be captured in reporting.
• Issues associated with radio-nuclides.
• How to address alloy exemptions for metals.
• How to address issue of PAHs from asphalt plants that are current exempt from reporting because of the employee threshold.
• Materials flow reporting - i.e., the collection of information on the use and fate of chemicals at a facility level (e.g., amounts purchased or manufactured, quantities in products, and quantities sent for treatment on site.)