Hydrazine: response to comments on proposed notice

Hydrazine was classified as a toxic substance under paragraphs 64(a) and 64(c) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) and was added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Act on September 20, 2012. Based on the final screening assessment report, a pollution prevention planning notice (a legal instrument under CEPA) was determined to be the most appropriate regulatory instrument for industrial effluent releases of hydrazine.

The final pollution prevention planning notice requires industrial facilities releasing effluents with a concentration of hydrazine above the given target level to develop and implement a plan to reduce the concentration of hydrazine in their effluents. It is a significant measure in addressing and monitoring industrial releases to the environment because it focuses on prevention at the source.

Environment and Climate Change Canada worked with affected industry representatives to develop a proposed pollution prevention planning notice for industrial effluent releases of hydrazine in the electricity sector. On April 18, 2015, the proposed notice containing the elements of the final notice was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for a 60-day public comment period. During that period, five stakeholders submitted comments to Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The present document summarizes the comments received and how they were addressed during the development of the final pollution prevention planning notice (referred to as the “final notice” in the text that follows).

Summary of the major modifications made to the final notice in response to stakeholder comments

Six key changes were made to the final notice:

1. In Section 1 (Definitions), new definitions for “large freshwater body” and for “receiving water” were added to offer clarity. As well, the definition of “normal operating conditions” was adjusted
2. In Section 2, the effluent target levels were adjusted to reflect the impact of dilution at the various discharge points. The target levels in the Final notice are now:
   • 26 ug/L, if discharged to a Great Lake
   • 26 ug/L, if discharged to a large freshwater body
   • 2.6 ug/L, if discharged to a freshwater body that is not a large freshwater body or a Great Lake
   • 2.0 ug/L, if discharged to sea water
3. In Section 4(5)(a), criteria were added for the handling and shipping of samples
4. In Section 4(5)(b), laboratory analysis criteria were adjusted to reflect the changes in the effluent target levels. As well, the maximum method detection limit was replaced with a maximum limit of quantification.
5. Reporting in Section 4 and in Schedules 1 and 5 were reviewed and streamlined
6. Section 12 and Schedule 4 (Interim Progress Report) were withdrawn

Comments received during the Canada Gazette, part I consultation and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s responses to these comments

Section 1 : Definitions

Final discharge point

Comment: Clarification was sought on the interpretation of the definition of “final discharge point”. It is not clear how to identify the final discharge point and whether water used in the equipment of the facility could be considered as receiving waters.

Response: To clarify the definition of “final discharge point”, a new definition for receiving water was added in the Final notice. This new definition describes receiving water as being any body, stream or channel of water, excluding water used in the equipment of the facility, for on-site storage or for treatment of effluents.

Normal operating conditions

Comment: Clarification was sought on the interpretation of the definition of “normal operating conditions” as well as on the extent of the exclusion for units that start up or shut down. It was also suggested that the definition excludes units in outage.

Response: The definition of “normal operating conditions” was simplified by removing the following wording which can be open to interpretation: “…regular or typical operating conditions…” and “…regularly schedule events…”. The definition in the final notice now specifies that the conditions during start up or shut down are not considered to be “normal operating conditions” and an exclusion has been added for emergency circumstances and accidental releases. Examples have also been added to this definition.

Section 2 : Person or class of person required to prepare and implement a plan

Comment: Clarification was sought around the interpretation of the term “uses” as well as the threshold of 10%.

Response: Text around coverage of the Final notice was simplified by removing the term “uses” and the 10% threshold. For simplicity, subsection 2(1) and subsection 2(3) have been merged.

Section 3 : Activities in relation to which the plan is to be prepared

Comment: Some stakeholders expressed that the inclusion of storage in the requirements for the preparation and implementation of the plan was out of scope for the proposed notice and that the prevention of leaks and spills due to the storage of hydrazine is already addressed in each facilities emergency preparedness plans.

Response: Storage has been removed from the requirements of the final notice. Facilities subject to the final notice are now required to prepare and implement a plan in relation to only their use and release of hydrazine.

Section 4 : Factors to consider

Environmental risk management objective

Comment: There was an agreement among stakeholders that the target levels were too stringent. Stakeholders proposed that the target level be applied as an annual average instead of a maximum limit applicable at all time.

Response: In response to this issue, departmental analysis was undertaken and it was determined that the target levels could be made less stringent for large water bodies while still protecting the environment, but needed to be applicable at all time and not as an annual average.

Sampling of effluents

Comment: Some stakeholders expressed that sampling the effluents during the highest expected releases is not necessarily representative of “normal operating conditions” and does not represent the chronic exposure concentration of hydrazine on which the FEQG[MT1]  is derived. They added that sampling should at all time “be representative of the concentration of hydrazine in the effluent under normal operation conditions”.

Response: The risk management objective of the proposed notice is to maintain a concentration of hydrazine in the effluents lower than or equal to the facilities target level at all times. In order to demonstrate this, effluents need to be monitored at their highest expected concentration. No changes were made.

Laboratory analysis

Comment: Stakeholders expressed concerns around their capacity to measure the concentration of hydrazine in their effluents at the sea water target level of 0.2 ug/L of the proposed notice.

Response: At the time of the publication of the proposed notice, a list of North American laboratories that offered sub-ppb hydrazine analysis was available from ECCC upon request. The final notice should alleviate stakeholders concerns around effluents that are released in sea water as it set a target level of 2.0 ug/L, which will ease the analysis of effluents.

Comment: One stakeholder asked if the analysis could be done in-house if the analytical method used met the listed criteria?

Response: In the proposed notice, for analysis done in-house, the person had to consider that the method used meets the listed criteria for accuracy, precision and for the method detection limit. In the final notice, the accuracy and precision criteria was removed. For in-house or for analysis that are outsourced, the person has to consider using a method that has a limit of quantification of less than the target level that applies to the effluent as well as doing the analysis by a laboratory that:

1. is accredited under the International Organization for Standardization standard ISO/IEC 17025, entitled General requirements for the competences of testing and calibration laboratories, by an accrediting body that is a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual Recognition Arrangement, or
2. is accredited under the Environmental Quality Act, CQLR, c.Q-2; and the scope of its accreditation includes the analysis of hydrazine, or
3. is an equivalent laboratory to an accredited laboratory describe in clause 1. and 2.

Comment: One stakeholder asked if the analysis can be done by an on-line analyzer if the analyzer met the listed criteria.

Response: As per paragraph 4(5)(b), a person subject to the Final notice has to consider doing the analysis by a laboratory.

Comment: Some stakeholders indicated that having a method detection limit (MDL) set at the target levels was not appropriate considering that a MDL is a qualitative limit and that the accuracy and precision of an analytical method is weak around the MDL.

Response: The laboratory analysis criteria of the proposed notice include a minimum accuracy, a minimum precision and a maximum MDL. All these criteria together had to be considered. To resolve any ambiguity around the laboratory analysis criteria, the accuracy and precision criteria was removed in the final notice and the MDL requirements have been changed to a limit of quantification.

Comment: One stakeholder commented that specifying a minimum precision and accuracy of 30% may be misinterpreted as requiring values greater than 30%.

Response: To resolve any ambiguity, the accuracy, precision and MDL criteria were replaced by fixing a limit of quantification for the method used.

Comment: One stakeholder asked to what level the 30% accuracy and precision would be applied.

Response: The proposed notice does not specify the level at which the plus or minus 30% accuracy and precision is to be applied. In the final notice, the accuracy, precision and MDL criteria were replaced by fixing a limit of quantification for the method used.

Section 5 and 6: Period within which the plan is to be prepared and implemented

Comment: Some stakeholders asked whether the timing for the preparation and implementation of the plan would be based on the publication of the proposed notice or the final notice.

Response: The plan is to be prepared within 12 months and implemented within 36 months of the publication of the final notice or after a facility becomes subject to the final notice.

Comment: Some stakeholders expressed concern that a timeframe of 36 months to implement their plan would be too short.

Response: This concern is address under section 14 of the proposed notice and of the final notice, which provides instruction on how to ask for an extension of time to prepare or implement their plan.

Section 10 and 11: Filing of Declaration

Comment: One stakeholder expressed concern that a timeframe of 30 days to file a Declaration of Implementation or an amended Declaration to the Minister may be too short.

Response: CEPA outlines the timeframes for filing Declarations; therefore it is not possible to change these timeframes without amending CEPA.

Schedules

Baseline year

Comment: Some stakeholders expressed concern regarding the baseline year set at 2015 in the proposed notice. They indicated that industry has already undertaken significant capital expenditures in recent years to reduce hydrazine usage and concentration in effluent.

Response: In the final notice, the baseline year starts when a person becomes subject to the notice. Only a person that has a concentration of hydrazine in its effluents that is higher than the specified target level will be subject to the final notice. The risk management objective for hydrazine is to achieve and maintain, a total hydrazine concentration in effluent at each final discharge point of the facility that is less than or equal to the target levels. Therefore, the performance of a facility subject to the final notice will be evaluated on their capacity to reduce and maintain their concentration of hydrazine below their target level.

Reporting

Comment: Some stakeholders indicated that having to report spills and leaks along with information on storage and disposal of hydrazine was not aligned with the risk management objective of the proposed notice.

Response: For spills and leaks, the final notice only requires the reporting of the quantity of hydrazine that reaches a receiving body of water.