proposed notice requiring the p i pollution … · 2013-10-24 · responses to comments on the...
TRANSCRIPT
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE
PROPOSED NOTICE REQUIRING THE PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS IN RESPECT TO SPECIFIED TOXIC SUBSTANCES RELEASED FROM BASE METALS SMELTERS AND REFINERIES AND ZINC PLANTS
UNDER THE
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999 (CEPA 1999)
PROPOSED NOTICE PUBLISHED IN CANADA GAZETTE, PART I, 25 SEPTEMBER, 2004
FINAL NOTICE PUBLISHED IN CANADA GAZETTE, PART I, APRIL 29, 2006
REVISION: MARCH 30, 2006
1
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................2
1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................7
2.0 Comments and Responses presented by Themes ..........................................9
2.1 Theme Number 1: The choice/concept of the Pollution Prevention (P2) Planning approach as an effective instrument for the sector ........................... 9 2.2 Theme Number 2: Targets and Schedules – Costs and socio-economic implications of implementing the best available techniques, Suggested site-specific scientific basis ................................................................. 12 2.3 Theme Number 3: Targets and Schedules as “factors to consider”. .......... 14 2.4 Theme Number 4: The Environmental Code of Practice for Base Metals Smelters and Refineries ............................................................................ 15 2.5 Theme Number 5: Development of harmonized regulatory requirements (alignment of federal and provincial programs) ............................... 18 2.6 Theme Number 6: The process leading to the development of the Proposed Notice.................................................................................................... 19 2.7 Theme Number 7: Creation of level playing field ....................................... 20 2.8 Theme Number 8: Contribution to the development of the Final Notice and Recommendations to Environment Canada ................................................... 21
3.0 References.........................................................................................................22
2
SUMMARY A Proposed Notice for Pollution Prevention Plans for Base Metals Smelters was published in Canada Gazette Part I on September 25, 2004, in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Drafts of an associated Environmental Code of Practice were also made available for public consultation. Comments were received from members of a Base metals Environmental Multistakeholder Advisory Group (BEMAG) and others on the Proposed Notice and draft Code. Subsequent proposed modifications to the Proposed Notice and Code were discussed by BEMAG on October 27, 28, 2005. A convergence of views on most issues evolved among involved stakeholders during these consultations. The following summarizes the nature of the comments by stakeholders:
• Broad support evolved for the use of Pollution Prevention Plans and the associated Code under CEPA for the management of pollutants from the sector.
• The development of modified emission reduction targets and schedules,
based on available pollution prevention and control, and taking into account provincial requirements, was widely supported. Some suggested that environmental, health, engineering and economic considerations should be more fully taken into account.
• Comments were received to refine drafts of the Environmental Code of
Practice.
• Many, although not all stakeholders, supported the concept of a level playing field of environmental performance minimum standards, with requirements having regulatory force by 2015 and harmonized across the country.
• The BEMAG consultative process was widely supported with similar
inclusive and transparent processes suggested for reviews of the Pollution Prevention Plans as they are developed and implemented.
All comments were taken into account and are reflected in the Final Pollution Prevention Planning Notice, published in Canada Gazette Part I, April 29, 2006, and reflected in the associated Environmental Code of Practice for Base Metals Smelters and Refineries, First Edition, published March, 2006. The following summarizes the elements of the Final Notice and indicates responsive modifications and revisions to the Proposed Notice.
3
Element of Pollution Prevention Plan Notice
Status of Element, including modifications, in Final Pollution Prevention Plan Notice
Preamble
The Final Notice announced by the Minister of the Environment (The Proposed Notice was issued on behalf of the Minister by the Director General, Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environment Canada)
Definitions and Substances covered by the Plan
Editorial refinements (some definitions were deleted, others added)
Facilities Covered No substantive changes - only existing facilities are addressed.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
Objective Title added for “Risk Management Objective”, but Objective wording itself unchanged
“ The application of best available techniques for pollution prevention and control to avoid or minimize the creation and release of pollutants and wastes and to reduce the overall risk to the environment or human health”
Environmental Code of Practice
Code modified to include new minimum level emissions guidelines for existing facilities (e.g., 90% minimum Sulphur Fixation modified from 95%) and more stringent requirements for different types of new smelting facilities. Also additional ambient air quality objectives (e.g., World Health Organization for Sulphur Dioxide) Requirements to report on conformance with Code Recommendations as a factor to consider more explicit. Clarifications, refinements and corrections made to Code text.
Community Air Quality Protection Program
This is a new “factor” which explicitly refers to associated Code Recommendations and outlines elements of the Program
Smelters Emissions Reduction Program - Sulphur Dioxide and
This is a new “factor” which incorporates modified emission reduction targets and schedules. The Sulphur Dioxide targets are aligned to
4
Particulate Matter provincial requirements for BC, ON, QC and NB for 2008 and 2015 or 90% Sulphur Fixation for 2015, whichever is the most stringent. The 2008 target for Manitoba smelters is 15% less than current regulated provincial limits of 220,000 tonnes/year. The Particulate Matter (PM) targets are now based on process PM only (and do not include quantified limits for area fugitive emissions, due to uncertainty of data) and are generally calculated for past emissions or 4kg PM/tonne of Metal Produced, whichever is the most stringent.
Smelters Emissions Reduction Program - Metals, Dioxins and Furans
The Annual Release Limit Targets for Mercury and Dioxins and Furans are unchanged and were derived from associated Canada wide Standards (CWS) which were applied respectively to the two large emitters in the sector for Mercury, and Dioxins and Furans. Reference is added to the CEPA Metals Reductions targets of the Strategic Options Process and Report for the 2008 target and beyond. Specific references to associated Recommendations in the Code are made, including the recommended practice of developing facility-specific metals emissions reductions targets which take into account emission reduction targets for Sulphur Dioxide and Particulate Matter and concentrations and loadings of metals in the particulate and gaseous phases in air emissions.
Intention of Ministers to develop Release Regulations, effective 2015
This is retained with modified wording indicating possible Equivalency Agreements with Provinces.
Studies on environmental, health, pollution prevention and control techniques, greenhouse gas emissions, engineering and economics
The wording has been modified and indicates that these studies relate to smelter emissions and ambient air quality and may be taken into account in the development of Community Air Quality Protection Programs and Smelter Emissions Reduction Programs.
OTHER ELEMENTS IN POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
References Some references added including Cheminfo, 2006,Technical Assessment of Environmental Performance and Emission Reduction Options for the Base Metals Smelters Sector, March 2006
5
Periods for plan preparation, content of plan, requirement to keep plan
No substantive changes
Declaration of Preparation No substantive changes – required by November 29, 2006
Declaration of Implementation
No substantive changes – required by January 30, 2016
Filing of amended Declarations
No substantive changes
Interim Progress Reports Modified to harmonize with National Release Inventory Requirements (NPRI). First annual Report required June 1, 2007. This includes completion of form for Status of Conformance with Environmental Code of Practice Recommendations.
Use of a plan prepared or implemented for another purpose
No substantive changes
Extension of Time No substantive changes
Application for waivers of factors to consider
No substantive changes
More information on pollution prevention planning
Updated information
Reference Code: P2BMS Unchanged
Forms Updated and modified to agree with Final Notice. Available electronically from the National Office of Pollution Prevention of Environment Canada.
Environment Canada contact information
Updated
Explanatory Note Unchanged
Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Refined and updated forms for Declarations of Preparation, Request to Waiver of a Factor, Request for Time Extensions to Prepare and Implement, Annual Interim Progress reports, and Declarations of Implementation Completion.
In conclusion, Environment Canada carefully considered and was responsive to the sometimes conflicting comments and advice provided by stakeholders and
6
consultants in the development of the Final Pollution Prevention Plan Notice and the associated Environmental Code of Practice for Base Metals Smelters and Refineries.
7
1.0 Introduction On September 25, 2004 Environment Canada published in Part I of the Canada Gazette, a Proposed Notice Requiring the Preparation and Implementation of Pollution Prevention Plans in respect to Specified Toxic Substances Released from Base Metals Smelters and Refineries and Zinc Plants. For simplicity, this document will be referred to as the Proposed Notice. This Proposed Notice was published pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (CEPA 1999) as an instrument for preventive or control actions for specified substances released to the environment. During the 60-day comment period that followed the publication of the Proposed Notice, Environment Canada received submissions covering a wide variety of issues. Additional comments were received after the initial comment period and during subsequent consultations held with stakeholders. All the comments received have been considered in finalizing the CEPA instrument. This document summarizes the comments received under themes, without attributing any comment to any particular person or organization. In total, Environment Canada received 24 written sets of comments on the Proposed Notice. Comments were received from:
• Bedford Mining Alert • Canadian Environmental Law Association • Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy • Dave Stevens • Dow • Hatch • Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting • Inco • Mayor of Town of Snow Lake • Mining Association of Canada • MiningWatch Canada • Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec • Natural Resources Canada • Noranda Inc. / Falconbridge Limited • Norman Regional Development Corporation • Ontario Ministry of the Environment • Pollution Probe • Prairie Acid Rain Coalition
8
• Sierra Club • STOP • STORM Coalition • Teck Cominco • United Steelworkers of America • UTSB Research
In May 2002, a Base metals Environmental Multistakeholder Advisory Group (BEMAG) was formed by Environment Canada to provide advice on environmental initiatives in the sector. BEMAG held five meetings and helped prepare the Proposed Notice published in September 2004. On November 29-30, 2004, after comments were received on the Proposed Notice, a meeting of BEMAG was held in Vancouver, BC. The meeting was to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to share views and comments on the Proposed Notice and to help finalize instruments for the sector under CEPA 1999. Participants at the meeting included the Mining Association of Canada (MAC) and their smelter members (Inco, Noranda/Falconbridge, TeckCominco, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting), environmental groups (STOP, STORM, and Canadian Environmental Law Association), United Steelworkers of America, Provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba), Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada, and Environment Canada (Headquarters and Regional Offices from Prairie and Northern, Pacific and Yukon). Stakeholders in attendance at the BEMAG meeting presented and discussed their submissions. On October 27-28, 2005 a meeting of BEMAG was held in Quebec City, QC, to discuss the Proposed Notice. At this meeting, Environment Canada staff presented an outline of a modified pollution prevention plan notice which took into account stakeholders’ comments, concerns and suggestions. After this meeting, further written comments were received from:
• Canadian Environmental Law Association • Natural Resources Canada, CANMET • Falconbridge Limited • Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting • Inco • Mining Association of Canada • Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec • Ontario Ministry of the Environment • Pollution Probe • STOP • STORM Coalition and MiningWatch
9
This document outlines various comments received during consultations on the Proposed Notice and how they have been considered and addressed. 2.0 Comments and Responses presented by Themes
2.1 Theme Number 1: The choice/concept of the Pollution Prevention (P2) Planning approach as an effective instrument for the sector
COMMENTS RESPONSES
Some comments indicated that the concept, overall intent and direction of the P2 instrument was supported, providing that the process is transparent, plans are made public and plans are subject to regular review and reporting: • P2 Plan should be prepared in a
transparent process, open to all stakeholder participation, include credible economic and technical analysis, and be implemented in a timely fashion.
• Interim and annual progress reports should be publicly available.
• Some information in detailed P2 Plans may be commercially sensitive and confidential
• Requests for confidentiality could compromise public access.
• Because extensions could compromise the implementation schedule, these should be a one-time issuance with a clear forward plan.
• Transparent, defensible criteria should be specified in granting waivers.
• There are no criteria to assess whether or why extensions should be granted, and no time limit for extensions.
• Requests for extensions should be transparent.
• P2 Plans should remain as living documents.
• A review protocol in 2008 is needed to monitor and evaluate facilities and evaluate P2 Plan effectiveness.
Notices requiring Preparation and Implementation of Pollution Prevention Plans will be posted on the CEPA Environmental Registry (http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/default.cfm). Parts of the Declarations of Preparation and Implementation submitted, amendments to such Declarations, Interim Progress Reports and Requests for Time Extensions or Waivers will be posted on Environment Canada’s Green Lane (www.ec.gc.ca/cepap2). All time extensions that are granted will be published in the Canada Gazette. Environment Canada has developed an online reporting system and database that manages pollution prevention planning information received from facilities. The reporting system, as part of the “government on-line” initiative, facilitates the reporting requirements for persons subject to P2 Planning Notices and makes the information available to the public. The P2 Planning reporting system is important to public transparency, an important factor for the success of the program. The analysis of the data in these P2 Planning declarations and interim progress reports will enable Environment Canada to monitor the effectiveness of a Risk Management Strategy for the sector and to determine whether further action is required in managing the substance(s). Persons are entitled to submit a request under section 313 of CEPA 1999 that specific information be treated as confidential. In such cases, guiding principles of the Privacy Act will be used.
Other comments expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of the P2 Notice
Persons subject to a P2 Planning Notice who do not comply with the requirements of that Notice
10
COMMENTS RESPONSES as it is not an enforceable regulatory instrument: • It is unclear how compliance will be
enforced and lack of compliance penalized, as the P2 instrument is not regulatory in nature.
are out of compliance with CEPA 1999. This includes failing to submit declarations or providing false or misleading information. . An offence under CEPA 1999 may be punishable by fines of up to $1,000,000 or imprisonment for up to three years. Environment Canada officials use the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) in order to secure compliance with Act. This may be done through two types of activity: compliance promotion and enforcement. The choice of the appropriate set of measures to secure compliance, and the responses to alleged violations, will be determined on a case-by-case basis, and in accordance with the Policy. Compliance promotion activities will provide information to stakeholders on the requirements of the Pollution Prevention Plan Notice and Guideline. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ele-ale/policies/policies_e.asp
Some comments expressed concern that the emission reduction targets could become legally binding. • P2 Plans should allow for flexibility
recognizing uncertainties in long range planning.
The CEPA 1999 Pollution Prevention Plan instrument is flexible and encourages creativity and innovation by giving persons subject to the Notice control in deciding how they will attempt to meet the risk management objectives. As well, new or existing information and studies may be considered on health, environmental, pollution prevention and control techniques, engineering and economics. These may be used by companies in considering P2 Plan targets and schedules, which are not mandatory regulatory requirements. However, the Final P2 Planning Notice includes an indication of the Minister’s intention to develop conventional Release Regulations which may take into account the P2 Plans prepared by facilities.
Another group of comments considered the Proposed Notice unnecessary and provincial legislation and the Code of Practice as sufficient: • Sulphur dioxide emissions should be
Base metals smelters and refineries and zinc plants release substances that are considered as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and as such the federal government has the obligation to develop appropriate instruments respecting preventive
11
COMMENTS RESPONSES controlled by provinces, whereas the P2 Notice should only require a commitment to “continual improvement” and targets should be removed.
or control actions in relation to these substances.
There were suggestions that the inclusion of more than one management instrument in the Proposed Notice leads to lack of clarity.
The modified P2 Plan Notice and incorporated Code of Practice do not contradict, but complement each other.
Some comments were related to general administration and development of the Plans: • Request for Environment Canada to
provide examples of P2 Plans, possibly from other industries.
• Concerns with the mechanics of the P2 planning process, as reduction targets for certain facilities have already been met.
• No incentive in proposed targets for further reductions at facilities with low emissions.
Environment Canada has prepared a Pollution Prevention Planning Handbook. This document provides an overview of the P2 planning process, a model plan template and detailed information on practices and certain analytical techniques that may be helpful in preparing and implementing a P2 plan. Sections 16 and 19 of the Notice provide names, phone numbers and Web sites where people can get advice on preparing P2 plans. There are additional factors to consider beyond the reduction targets that persons subject to the Final P2 Planning Notice must consider when preparing a P2 plan. These additional factors to consider include recommendations from the Code of Practice and the development and implementation of Community Air Quality Program The National Office of Pollution Prevention (NOPP) is Environment Canada's focal point for the implementation of federal pollution prevention policy and legislation. Frequently Asked Questions, P2 Fact Sheets, Handbooks and Model Plan can be consulted. http://www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/ Instructions for completing the Schedules are also provided with the Final Notice. Another source of pollution prevention information is the Canadian Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (CPPIC). CPPIC is an on-line database (www.ec.gc.ca/cppic) containing over 1600 references, including P2 success stories. The Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention (C2P2), a non-profit organization whose business is the transfer of Pollution Prevention information is another important source of
12
COMMENTS RESPONSES information. They provide links with P2 experts, conferences, training and publication, and other useful information. The C2P2's programs benefit from the support of a 9-member Board, reflecting government, industry and public interests. With their experience and knowledge of pollution prevention initiatives across Canada, they provide insight to program direction. http://www.c2p2online.com/
2.2 Theme Number 2: Targets and Schedules – Costs and socio-economic implications of implementing the best available techniques, Suggested site-specific scientific basis
COMMENTS RESPONSES
Several comments related to costs of achieving the proposed targets and implementing best available techniques: • Need to consider costs and socio-
economic implications of implementing the best available techniques.
• No existing best available technology to meet some proposed targets.
• The Proposed Notice does not maximize environmental benefits at minimum cost and target least cost emission reductions for early implementation.
Targets are proposed as “factors to consider”, and benefits/costs evaluation may be done by facilities developing P2 plans. The Pollution Prevention Plan instrument allows companies to develop plans that take into account scientific information on health and environmental impacts as well as, technological, economic and social factors. Following the publication of the Proposed Notice, a study on the technical feasibility and costs of the proposed targets was commissioned. In the Final Notice, the targets were modified to take into account the cost effectiveness of various targets and advice from stakeholders. When proposing conventional release regulations, Environment Canada is required to develop a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) documenting benefits and costs. This would be done for the 2015 release regulations using multistakeholder consultations and consultants, information submitted in Interim Progress Reports for the P2 Plans, and various studies.
Several comments relating to the need to evaluate site-specific conditions to develop site-specific emission limits were received: • Need for site-specific health and
The emission guidelines, targets and
13
COMMENTS RESPONSES environmental studies to support proposed emission reduction targets and schedules.
• Facilities should undertake studies to demonstrate feasibility and equity of their P2 plans.
• Emission of specified toxic substances should be reduced to levels that do not threaten human health and the environment.
• It cannot be suggested that there are no health and environmental effects from Manitoba smelter emissions and no reason for reductions.
• The need to include low emitters is questioned, as there is no significant impact on regional air quality, and provinces are best positioned to manage local air quality. Objective should be to reduce emissions from largest emitters.
schedules in the Code and P2 Notice are based on commonly used pollution prevention and control techniques in the sector and may not be adequate for protection of ambient air quality at all times in all locations. Consequently, a Community Air Quality Protection Program has been added to the Final Notice so that ambient air quality objectives are not exceeded. This may involve periodic reductions and special management of emissions from some operations at some times. A meeting was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba in November 2004 between Environment Canada, Health Canada, the Manitoba government, and representatives from Manitoba smelter companies to exchange information and views on base metal smelter emissions and their effects, address concerns specific to Manitoba facilities, and explore potential opportunities for collaborative assessment of studies. There was agreement on the need for more effective monitoring to fill in gaps in scientific information on the ecosystem impacts of emissions from the base-metal smelting sector. Following the meeting, Environment Canada and Manitoba Conservation agreed to discussions about acid rain monitoring and research in Manitoba and other western provinces. Beginning in April 2005, Manitoba and Saskatchewan joined the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) Acid Rain Task Group, bringing the provincial representation to all ten provinces. Various cooperative studies are now planned which will help better understand the ecological impacts of smelter emissions.
Some comments suggested that the Proposed Notice and Code was focussed on available technologies, economics and the profitability of companies, rather the protection of the health of workers, the public and the environment.
The modified Pollution Prevention Plan Notice is balanced, and includes a Community Air Quality Protection Program. It also encourages consideration of existing and new scientific, health, environmental, technical, economic and social studies.
14
2.3 Theme Number 3: Targets and Schedules as “factors to consider”.
COMMENTS RESPONSES
One facility proposed 2020 rather than 2015 for reductions based on about 70% Sulphur Fixation rather than 90% Sulphur Fixation.
The Minister may receive requests for time extensions to prepare or implement the P2 Plan. Persons subject to the P2 Notice may submit written requests for time extensions that include an appropriate rationale and must be submitted before the published deadlines.
Some comments related to the selection of substances covered or not covered by the Proposed Notice and the determination of reduction targets for these substances: • Delete substances that are extraneous to
the finding of toxicity of releases from Base Metals Smelters (BMS) and provide guidance on how facilities select, prioritize and act on substances.
• P2 Plans should include all toxic substances released at each facility.
• Not all substances identified in the Proposed Notice need to be reported in schedules.
• Not all facilities identified have reduction targets for certain substances.
• Metals releases from new facilities have not been accounted for. Targets should be specified for new facilities.
• Not all substances identified have reduction targets.
• Concern regarding lack of reduction targets and schedules for individual CEPA-toxic metals except mercury, as there is no strict correlation between particulate matter reductions and metals reductions.
• Other substances of concern should be addressed in the Notice, such as chromium, thallium, selenium, antimony, manganese.
As per section 56 of CEPA 1999, the Minister can publish a Notice requiring the Preparation and Implementation of Pollution Prevention Plans in respect of substances specified on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999. Therefore, other substances of concern, such as chromium, thallium, selenium, antimony, manganese cannot be specifically addressed on a mandatory basis in the P2 Notice under section 56 of CEPA 1999. However, the Environmental Code of Practice is not restricted to substances defined as “toxic” under the Act and addresses other substances of concern. Particulate Matter may contain various metals listed and not listed on Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999. It is expected that Pollution Prevention Plans will be prepared and implemented, in effect, for all pollutants released by base metals smelters and refineries and zinc plants. However, Declaration of Preparation, Declaration of Implementation, and Annual Interim Progress Reports are required only for substances for which targets and schedules are specified in section 4 of the Notice.
Some comments related to the Canada wide Standard (CWS) for Mercury as a factor to consider in the Proposed Notice: • Suggest using Canada-wide Standards for
Mercury, not emission reduction targets and schedules.
• Mercury targets should be proposed for 2015 as well, and other facilities should be included in the mercury emission reductions table.
• Mercury target for Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting (HBMS) should be based on
The target and schedule for mercury in the Notice has been calculated based on the Canada-wide Standard for Mercury of 2 g Hg/tonne total production of finished metals and the total assumed production of finished metals of 186,300 tonnes for Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting for copper and zinc. Only one facility was included in the emission
15
COMMENTS RESPONSES copper production only, not on combined copper and zinc production.
reduction target table because all other facilities are meeting the CWS.
Some comments related to the selection of year 2008 and 2015 for the proposed targets or 1998 as base year: • Operating life of some facilities may not
extend to 2015, resulting in no reductions post-2008.
• Suggest targets for 2008 only, due to future uncertainty relating to ore reserves and metal prices.
• Reduction targets and schedules should not be limited to a decade, but for operational life.
• Concern with the choice of the 1998 base year, as this year may not have been representative of normal operation due to changes in production levels.
The selection of 2008 is consistent with the work and recommendations made under the Strategic Options Process and Report for the Base Metals Smelting Sector which was published by Environment Canada in 1997. By 2015, it is planned that release regulations would harmonize the regulatory requirements for the sector. The proposal for Pollution Prevention planning now by the industry followed by regulations in 2015, gives the sector the time necessary to make the process and technological changes to achieve the world class environmental performance standards for all Canadian smelters.
One commentator, although not fundamentally opposed to the proposed Dioxin and Furan target and schedule, noted that the Code includes a concentration-based guideline.
For consistency, all targets have been set in terms of total amount per year. For Dioxins and Furans, the concentration guideline of the Code was converted into estimated grams/year for the one facility which has relatively high emissions.
2.4 Theme Number 4: The Environmental Code of Practice for Base
Metals Smelters and Refineries
COMMENTS RESPONSES Some comments indicated support for the Code as a voluntary guide to continuous environmental improvement and provided suggestions for its further development and improvement: • Suggest recognition of existing,
comparable practices. • Recommend continued Code development
by transparent process, the application of sound science and available technology, with input from industry and other communities of interest.
• Flexibility to site-specific situations should be recognized, as in the Environmental Code of Practice for Iron and Steel Mills.
Modifications to the Code text were made to provide further clarity and more consistency with the P2 Plan elements. The Code includes recommended practices for continual improvements in environmental performance. The Code is meant to be performance based, clear but not overly prescriptive. The Code does not preclude the use of more
16
COMMENTS RESPONSES Other comments opposed the Code or questioned its need: • Code is unduly prescriptive and would
impose excessive costs for monitoring and reporting.
• Concern that guidelines do not allow facilities to find the most cost-effective means to reduce emissions.
cost effective alternative practice or technology by individual facilities as long as they achieve an equivalent or better level of environmental protection. (see 1.4 in the Code).
Another series of comments were related to legal/enforcement and economic aspects of the Code: • Concern with requirement for report of
status of conformance with Code. • Concern with duplication/overlap of Code
with existing practices and provincial regulations.
• Concern with recommendations in sections 1.2 and 1.6 because they may encourage governments, ENGOs, and the financial community to view every element of the Code as a quasi-regulatory requirement.
• Concern that Code may be viewed as quasi-regulatory, and companies will be forced to rationalise why each element was not implemented, although not every element may be appropriate to all facilities.
• Code recommendations should be enforceable, not voluntary guidelines.
The Code does not have the force of law, and therefore, it nether substitutes or replaces existing regulatory requirements under municipal, provincial and federal authorities. The elements of the Code are a compilation and recommended best practices for responsible environmental protection by facilities.
Comments related to the proposed Sulphur Fixation Rates were received: • Sulphur fixation >90% would require large,
uneconomic process changes with no health or environmental benefits in itself.
Based on advice from consultants and BEMAG, the Sulphur Fixation rates were modified from those in the Proposed P2 Notice and Code. The emission guidelines are now: 1. Each facility should consider use of low
sulphur feed and recycled materials to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide.
2. Each existing facility should be designed and operated to achieve a minimum sulphur fixation rate of 90% by a committed timetable.
3. Each new copper, lead and zinc smelter should be designed and operated to achieve a minimum sulphur fixation rate of 99%.
4. Each new nickel smelter should be designed and operated to achieve a minimum sulphur fixation rate of 96%.
Comments pertained to how the Code related to the Proposed Notice:
17
COMMENTS RESPONSES • Concern with certain guidelines for
Particulate Matter and Sulphur Fixation, due to inconsistency with proposed sulphur dioxide targets in the Proposed P2 Notice.
• Emission concentration and ambient air quality objectives may be inconsistent with Proposed Notice targets.
• Recommend allowance for sulphur reduction at the mine/mill for smelter sulphur dioxide emission reductions.
The 2015 targets in the Proposed P2 Notice were estimated to be equivalent 95% Sulphur Fixation. The modified Code is for a minimum of 90% Sulphur Fixation. The modified P2 Notice is for a minimum of 90% Sulphur Fixation, or provincial requirements, whichever is the most stringent. Emission concentration limits may not always be adequate to meet ambient air quality objectives at all times. Therefore, special actions may be required at certain times such as temporary reduction of smelter operations as discussed in item 2.2 Targets and Schedules Low sulphur feed and/or by pyrrhotite rejection which will decrease sulphur dioxide emissions, are recognized pollution prevention techniques. In addition, there are available smelting, refining and acid recovery plant technologies that will reduce emissions. Both pollution prevention and pollution control may be used.
Some comments pertaining to specific sections and recommendations of the Code were received: • Recommend use of wording of “good
environmental practices” instead of “best available techniques” in Section S.3.
• Concern that Section S.3 was not developed in consultation with BEMAG.
• Recommendations R207, R210, R307, R111, R113, R114 should be recommended in the P2 Notice as “factors to consider”.
• Recommendation R209 units and numbers should be reviewed, as different units have been given, and numbers do not correspond to previous draft versions.
• Concern with recommendation R204 setting of 95% sulphur fixation for older facilities; suggest 95% for new facilities and 90% for existing.
• The emission concentration recommended in R203 would require a technology change, whose cost is not supported by risk analysis.
• Should recommend that facilities develop site-specific targets and schedules.
• The Notice and Code should clarify that particulate matter targets should be based
The Code as a whole has been developed through consultation with BEMAG. During the process comments have been received on the whole document as well as on individual elements of the Code. The Code is referenced in the Notice as a “factor to consider” when developing Pollution Prevention Plans. Error in numerical units in Recommendation 209 has been rectified. Other modifications to the Code have been made and some of these are indicated in responses to other comments.
18
COMMENTS RESPONSES on process emissions which can be reliably measured.
2.5 Theme Number 5: Development of harmonized regulatory
requirements (alignment of federal and provincial programs)
COMMENTS RESPONSES Some comments were supportive of a regulatory backstop in 2015 or possibly earlier, to legally enforce targets: • Support a regulatory approach that
integrates environmental, social and economic objectives.
• Regulatory backstop should be advanced prior to 2015.
• Timing of regulatory backstop is unclear – the statement that it will occur by 2015 could mean any time before 2015.
The proposal for Pollution Prevention planning now by the industry followed by regulations effective in 2015, gives the sector the time necessary to make the process and technological changes to achieve the world class environmental standards for all Canadian smelters.
Other comments were opposed to regulations by 2015: • Regulations in 2015 are not reasonable
because variability in receiving environments are not contemplated or accounted for.
• Regulatory backstop in 2015 could result in conflict with some provinces.
The Minister of the Environment is committed to provide leadership and to develop regulations to help harmonize regulatory requirements for all base metal smelters by 2015. The selection of appropriate standards for inclusion in the regulations will take into account consultations with provinces and stakeholders, existing and new studies, and the results of the Pollution Prevention Plans prepared and implemented by facilities.
Several comments under this theme were related to how federal and provincial programmes could be complementary: • The strategy should synergize with
provinces, and could include regulations, market-based instruments, and Environmental Performance Agreements.
• Environment Canada needs to engage in bilateral discussions with Manitoba.
• Certain federal targets are more stringent than in provinces.
• Encourage federal government to consider regulations that avoid unnecessary overlap or duplication with provincial regulations and programs, perhaps by considering appropriate provincial requirements as equivalent to federal limits.
The development of Equivalency Agreements with Provinces, and a full range of environmental strategies can be used. The National Advisory Committee of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA NAC) will continue to be used.
19
2.6 Theme Number 6: The process leading to the development of the
Proposed Notice
COMMENTS RESPONSES Various comments related to the activities, scope, and future work of the Base metals Environmental Multistakeholder Advisory Group (BEMAG): • Fully supportive of BEMAG process and
prepared to re-engage if a fully consultative process is re-opened.
• The BEMAG process offers significant opportunity to intervene and design an effective instrument.
• Existing processes should be utilized to the fullest possible extent instead of developing other similar activities.
• A framework should be imposed, not just mandatory targets, to allow potential for ongoing discussion.
• The focus of future consultations should be on sulphur dioxide and mercury.
• Concerns with mechanism and protocol followed by Environment Canada in setting targets.
• Future public consultations should occur on the progress and implementation of the Plans
In 2001 and 2002, Environment Canada sponsored a National Workshop on the Development of Environmental Performance Standards for the Base Metals Smelting Sector. An important outcome of the workshops was agreement from stakeholders to work together. As a result a Base metals Environmental Multistakeholder Advisory Group (BEMAG) was created. BEMAG is made of representatives from the industry and its Association, the Provinces, Public Interest Groups, and the Federal Government. The mandate of the BEMAG was to provide advice to Environment Canada on environmental issues and initiatives affecting the base metals smelting and refining sector. Environment Canada remains committed to multistakeholder consultations and public reporting of industrial environmental releases and performance.
20
2.7 Theme Number 7: Creation of level playing field
COMMENTS RESPONSES
Comments related to the necessity to create (or not) a level playing field in terms of regulatory requirements for base metals smelters in Canada: • Companies should operate on a level
playing field of environmental performance requirements and reduce emissions to specified levels measured in unit release per unit production.
• Competition is distorted by avoiding pollution prevention and control costs, as high emitters can offer more attractive terms to concentrate suppliers.
• The federal government should adopt targets to facilitate a level playing field.
• Rejection of arguments that Manitoba smelters should be forced to rapidly reduce emissions to create a level playing field.
The P2 Notice and Code of Practice provides goals for continual improvements and a “level playing” field of environmental performance based on world class standards, to be achieved by 2015. This balanced approach takes into account scientific, technological, and economic and policy considerations and the initially widely divergent views of stakeholders.
Some comments noted that the Proposed Notice was not helping the creation of a level-playing field: • The Proposed Notice increases sulphur
dioxide emissions disparity among competing nickel and copper smelters.
• Considerable 2008 sulphur dioxide reductions required from low emitters constrain growth, while insignificant reductions are required from major emitters.
The modified P2 Notice is responsive to these concerns, while achieving a level playing field of environmental performance.
A comment noted that transboundary air and water impacts should be addressed, as one jurisdiction’s willingness or neglect to encourage P2 planning should not come at another’s expense.
The Ambient Air and Water Quality Objectives and Release Guidelines cited in the Code, and the intent to develop release regulations, will help bring uniform environmental quality across the country.
21
2.8 Theme Number 8: Contribution to the development of the Final
Notice and Recommendations to Environment Canada
COMMENTS RESPONSES Many comments, suggestions, and proposed changes regarding the wording of the Proposed Notice were made. Some addressing definitions: • To define “Particulate Matter”, as it is
unclear whether this refers to PM10, PM2.5 or Total PM. It would also be helpful to differentiate between process sources….and diffuse sources.
• To review the definition of a “new facility” as being a facility that start after the requirements for the plan come into force instead of the definite date of January 1, 2005.
The modified P2 Notice targets refer to total Particulate Matter from process sources (stacks and smelter process buildings) There is no definition of a “new facility” in the modified Code or Final P2 Notice. These projects will be dealt with through environmental assessment processes required for these facilities.
Suggestions were made regarding the harmonization of annual reporting with National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) and provinces. • Concern that P2 Plan reporting is due
January 31st of each year – data are not available until April or May of following year and NPRI data is due only June 1st.
• To align reporting requirements of annual interim progress reports, new facilities should be required to submit the first interim report on January 31 of the next year.
P2 Planning reporting deadlines for Interim Progress Reports have been aligned with NPRI reporting deadlines for June 1 of each year. The deadline to prepare a P2 Plan will remain 6 months after the publication of the Final Notice. Declarations of Preparation will be due 30 days after the period provided to prepare the P2 Plan (section 5 of the Final Notice).
Some comments addressed specific sections of the Proposed Notice: • Section 7 of schedules refers to objective,
which is not defined in the Proposed Notice.
• Timelines under CEPA 1999 and the Proposed Notice are too extensive, and the date of implementation should be advanced.
• Date of implementation should be December 31, 2008.
• The time period between the Final Notice publication and the first declaration should be longer than 6 months.
• The Notice should specify that facilities can use all relevant information or studies, not those “specific to the facility” as this could preclude consideration of other information.
The modified P2 Notice includes the objective, as reported. Date of implementation has been kept to December 31, 2015. Environment Canada believes that 6 months after publication of the Final Notice is sufficient to prepare the plan. Most facilities have been working on options to reduce emissions of toxic substances since the Strategic Option Process completed in 1997. In addition, at the time of the publication of the Final Notice, there would have been a period of about 18 months since the Proposed Notice was published. Also, as per section 14 of the Notice, persons may submit a written request to the Minister for an extension of time to prepare the Plan.
22
COMMENTS RESPONSES • Current emissions should be referenced in
emission reduction targets tables.
Factor to consider in section 4 of the Final Notice has been reworded to indicate that facilities can use all relevant information or studies.
Other comments addressed the Schedules and Declaration forms of the Proposed Notice: • Schedule 1, Part 4.1 should be removed,
as releases cannot be “manufactured, processed, distributed or otherwise”.
• To provide guidance for Section 4.1 of Schedule 1.
• Schedule 1, Parts 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 should include “as appropriate” or be specifically confined to declarations regarding mercury, since the other substances can not be released to water and land.
• Schedule 1 should provide space for explaining possible changes in total releases from change in production rate or other relevant factors.
• The Declaration Forms should require more information on point sources or air releases and related operating conditions in order to integrate these specifics in the P2 Plan and interim progress reports.
Section 4.1 in Schedules 1, 4 and 5 of the Final P2 Notice has been removed. Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 in Schedules 1, 4 and 5 of the Final P2 Notice have been removed. Section 8 of Schedule 1 is the appropriate place to explain and provide the reasons of possible changes in releases. The information on point sources or air releases and related operating conditions would normally be included in the Pollution Prevention Plan.
3.0 References The following are references associated with the Final Pollution Prevention Plan Notice and Environmental Code of Practice for Base Metals Smelters and Refineries. Canada Gazette Part I, April 29, 2006 www.ec.gc.ca/NOPP/P2P/en/P2notices.cfm Environment Canada, National Office of Pollution Prevention web site www.ec.gc.ca/NOPP Patrick G. Finlay, P. Eng. Director Minerals and Metals Pollution Prevention Directorate Environment Canada Email: [email protected]