Thank you.
I just thought I would try to provide a quick update on some of the comments that Mr. Reed provided.
First of all, he mentioned that the toxic substances management policy and the federal pollution prevention policy applied at the time of his audit. Both of those policies still apply and still guide the decision-making under CEPA and other federal statutes related to toxics.
He mentioned that there was a general absence of science-based goals for risk management. After the implementation of CEPA 1999, the department developed toxic management procedures--which are on the website of the department--that guide the way each risk manager undertakes his or her activities. They prescribe a process. The first step in the process is to try to identify a science-based goal for the management of a substance. Then, of course, you have to turn to what is practical and what the actual goal will be that is articulated in the management instrument. That's the policy that guides the development of risk management.
I don't want to mislead you and suggest that that is actually carried out in every case: the identification of (a) a science-based objective, and (b) making a linkage between a science-based objective and the actual risk management measure is extremely hard to do in many cases. We may want an ambient concentration of X, but if we decide to regulate sectors A, B, and C, but not D and E for various reasons, deciding what level of emission control, for example, or that a percentage of a product can contain a certain substance and then making the linkage between that and the overall environmental or health outcome that one wants is conceptually extremely hard to do. So again, this remains an ongoing challenge for both departments.
With regard to the DSL requirement--I've mentioned this a couple of times in appearing before the committee--the obligation in the act is to categorize all 23,000 substances by September 14 of this year. That obligation will be met; the departments will meet that obligation. The ministers are preparing to make those announcements.
As I have mentioned in the past, and I think as Mr. Reed emphasized, the interesting questions will be what we do with that information and how that information will change the way we both assess and manage substances. The departments are starting to talk to industrial and civil society stakeholders about a proposal for a new regime, based on that information.
The assertion was also that the regulatory process is too cumbersome, and therefore there is a tendency towards non-regulatory measures. I won't comment on the cumbersome nature of the process—there are many steps involved—but again, I want to emphasize that the law does not allow us to rely exclusively on non-regulatory measures. We must, by law, have a regulation or instrument for each substance added to schedule 1. I think that's important to recognize. Whether that's good or not is an issue for you to decide.
There was a question about virtual elimination, whether virtual elimination is precautionary and whether virtual elimination requirements in CEPA are linked to pollution prevention. I would suggest that virtual elimination requirements in CEPA are precautionary in the sense that they say if a substance is PBIT, it must be virtually eliminated. There is no question about it being subject to other types of analysis; it must be virtually eliminated.
Do those requirements necessarily drive or force pollution prevention? I would say the answer is not necessarily. The way virtual elimination is defined in the act is focused on releases. One can reduce releases through control measures or one can address releases through pollution prevention. The act does not necessarily drive us towards pollution prevention in the way that it spells out or defines “virtual elimination”.
That's the extent of the comments I wanted to make in response to those comments that Mr. Reed made.