My name is Gordon Lloyd. I'm with the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. It's good to be here, again. Hopefully we won't get a fire alarm today.
I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in this round table to discuss virtual elimination. Last May when CCPA appeared before the committee and tabled our detailed submission on the CEPA review, we did raise this issue, and we specifically suggested amending CEPA to modify the requirements to establish limits of quantification, LOQs, for the virtual elimination of substances that are present as trace contaminants.
Today I'd like to first provide a little background and context on virtual elimination, particularly in relation to the Stockholm Convention, and then address the specific LOQ concern and recommendation we have.
Virtual elimination stems from the government's 1995 toxic substances management policy. That policy is reflected domestically in CEPA, and it was also successfully carried forward by Canada at the Stockholm Convention on POPs, persistent organic pollutants. Virtual elimination in CEPA and in the toxic substances management policy was also developed to address the International Joint Commission philosophy of zero discharge, an approach to virtual elimination for persistent toxic substances.
Under CEPA, substances that are man-made, persistent, bioaccumulative, and found toxic after a risk assessment—and I'd like to emphasize the risk assessment part—are subject to virtual elimination, and this is a mandatory provision in the act. “Toxic” here is used in the sense of doing a risk assessment under section 64 of CEPA. This is quite different from inherent toxicity, which is hazard-based, and which is one of the criteria for DSL categorization, which the committee has been talking about more recently.
What is subject to virtual elimination is risk-based, and this is different from the hazard-based categorization results. Virtual elimination is set out in the act in terms of ultimately reducing releases below the level of quantification, or the LOQ. This is the lowest concentration that can be accurately measured using routine scientific analytical methods.
The purpose of establishing this LOQ was twofold. It was supposed to reflect that it's meaningless to require any further reductions, which couldn't be accurately measured and would not be enforceable. Also, it was put in to reflect the point made in policy discussions leading up to the virtual elimination policy, that it doesn't make sense to be chasing the last molecule, as it was called.
The act also requires that release limits for virtual elimination be set taking into account environmental and health risks; social, economic, and technical factors; and other relevant factors. Virtual elimination requirements apply to releases from plant operations and from products. As such, they apply to a substance occurring as an unintentional trace contaminant in products, even if there is no sense in trying to reduce it further, because the release is so small. This is a waste of resources, in CCPA's view, and is the LOQ issue that CCPA would like to see fixed by amending the legislation.
Before proceeding to discuss that specific concern in the amendment, I think it's worth noting how virtual elimination compares to the approach taken in the Stockholm Convention, and how that convention addresses the specific concern that we would like to see fixed in CEPA.
The Stockholm Convention addresses the same kinds of substances as virtual elimination. The convention first has substances nominated that have persistence and long-range transport and bioaccumulation characteristics and what the convention describes as toxic or adverse effects. However, in translating the last criteria into the CEPA language, what the convention refers to as “toxic” is what CEPA refers to as “inherently toxic”. Here we get into the issue of the confusion between the Canadian approach and the international approach. The convention then takes substances that meet these candidate criteria and, before there is a determination that the substance is a POP, applies the additional steps of doing a risk profile, which is like our risk assessment in CEPA, and considering socio-economic factors.
To summarize, to be a POP, a substance needs to meet the same factors as virtual elimination in CEPA--persistence and bioaccumulation--and has to undergo a risk assessment similar to the section 64 CEPA finding. Also, a long-range transport criterion that applies to POPs doesn't apply to virtual elimination in CEPA.
The persistence and bioaccumulation criteria under the convention and for POPs in CEPA for virtual elimination are almost identical, although there are some minor technical differences.
Under Stockholm, for releases from products, there are two annexes. One annex has the objective of elimination, the other annex has the objective of restriction of production and use. In CEPA, this is dealt with under the regulatory powers in section 93, where production and use can be banned or restricted.
Under the Stockholm Convention, there is a separate annex for releases from plant operations as opposed to products, which are dealt with in the first two annexes. Here, the objective for releases and the approaches are very similar to virtual elimination in CEPA. The convention stipulates measures to reduce or eliminate these releases in terms of establishing a goal of continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination. This is very similar to the ultimate reduction to the LOQ language for virtual elimination in CEPA. Also, just as CEPA takes into account environmental and health risks as well as social, economic, and technical factors in setting release limits, the Stockholm Convention requirements for POPs releases are described in terms of “...application of available, feasible, practical measures...”, “...expeditiously achieve a realistic and meaningful level of release reduction...” and “best environmental techniques”. So the objectives and the approaches in the convention for POPs releases are very similar to those in CEPA.
On trace contaminants, given the similarities of the Stockholm Convention for POPs and CEPA for virtual elimination, CCPA would suggest looking at the convention to fix the problem that we see with CEPA for trace contaminant levels of virtual elimination substances and products. As our ability to measure continuously improves, we will find trace contaminant levels for virtual elimination substances in products at levels that may not be of environmental or health concern. But Environment Canada would still be required to establish LOQs for such contaminants, even when they are convinced that there is no sense in doing so.
Establishing LOQs for substances and products will be technically challenging, expensive, and time-consuming for both government and industry, and it should not be done when it doesn't make sense to reduce the contaminant level. It should be reserved for when it does make sense to do so.
This very same issue was addressed in the Stockholm Convention in the annex of POP products that are to be eliminated. There is a note that says “Except as otherwise specified in the Convention, quantities of a chemical occurring as unintentional trace contaminants in products and articles shall not be considered to be listed in this Annex”.
So Canada and other countries in the POPs convention have agreed to not address unintentional trace contaminants as a matter of course, but only to do so when there is a specific decision that this is necessary and is worth doing. Incorporating similar thinking and language into CEPA would mean that, for trace contaminant levels of virtual elimination substances in products, there would no longer be a need to waste resources and establish LOQs as a matter of course. This would only be done when there's a decision in a specific case that there is a need for it. The contaminant levels would still be addressed by the simpler approach of using section 93 powers to establish concentration levels, but without the need to develop the difficult-to-establish LOQ for products.
Since the proposed amendments that we are discussing and the reasoning behind them arise from the Stockholm Convention--and environmental groups, industry and countries around the world supported the convention--we hope that everyone will readily agree to incorporate the type of thinking and provisions that we're proposing in CEPA.
Our proposed amendment is set out in my written notes before you and in our detailed submission that we filed last time. I won't read it here, in terms of technical drafting, but it's modelled after the language in Stockholm.
That addresses trace contaminant levels from products. I would note, though, for plant operations that result in emissions subject to virtual eliminations, we believe that LOQs remain appropriate. They are more easily developed here than for product contaminants, and they would still be required. Here the LOQ, we believe, is an essential part of the virtual elimination equation in CEPA, reflecting our ability to measure and the common sense to not chase the last molecule.
Thank you very much. I look forward to participating in the discussion on this.