I will try to respond briefly to a number of the points that were made.
In terms of ARET, I think it's important to say that the primary risk management approach for CEPA toxic substances was never to rely on ARET. Although ARET was an important measure, it was never the measure that was used to address a CEPA toxic substance. Indeed, CEPA 1999 made an important change in that it requires, by law, a regulation, or “instrument”, for each substance added to schedule 1. So we could not rely just on ARET, or an equivalent voluntary challenge, for a substance added to schedule 1, and have not done so.
The reporting mechanisms now extend beyond NPRI and include a number of air reporting mechanisms. Most CEPA regulations require reporting. The challenge that we have, and it's something we could do a better job on, is aggregating NPRI and similar air reporting and individual regulatory reporting to provide information to the public in a useful way.
I do want to emphasize that in 1995 there were about 1,800 facilities and 176 substances on the NPRI. A couple of years ago, in 2004, there were almost 9,000 facilities reporting on about 325 substances. So NPRI is expanding considerably, and continues to provide us with a better and better picture--not a perfect picture; it's important to understand that it's not a static tool.
The policy movement on voluntary measures, which Mr. Reed spoke about, is now documented in the form of a policy framework for environmental performance agreements. This is a formal policy that documents the circumstances in which the department will use non-regulatory performance agreements and specific requirements. Many of those requirements flow from the recommendations made by the commissioner and include such things as credible public reporting and some form of verification as a recognition that some of the voluntary measures that emerged in the 1990s were inadequate in being able to provide the information that the public and the government needed in order to determine efficacy.
In terms of ambient information, I think that is where we're weak. As Dr. Clarkson emphasized, that's not the only piece of information that is needed, but it is a critical piece of information. If releases are up or down, that's important to know, but really what we want to know is whether the environment and human health are better. You have to be able to make that connection.
Finally, in terms of the new substances regime and who does the work, and how credible that work is, the information is generated primarily by industry, but it has to be generated and provided in a form and following procedures that are prescribed in law by the government. Those procedures essentially require following standardized assessment protocols that have been developed throughout the OECD. It's not an unusual scientific thing to say that you must follow this procedure and document it in this way so that another scientist can review it and trust your data. That's the way the scientific world works, and that's essentially the way the new substances notification regime works.