Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Left hand menu

Canada Gazette
Consultation
- What is the consultation process?
- Current Consultations
Archives
Publishing Information
Resources
Stay in Touch
- RSS Feeds
Proactive Disclosure
- Proactive Disclosure

Vol. 134, No. 30 — July 22, 2000

GOVERNMENT NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE

BROADCASTING ACT

Invitation to Comment on the Future Directions of the Canadian Television Fund

Notice is hereby given that the Broadcasting Policy and Innovation Branch of the Department of Canadian Heritage is seeking comments on the future directions of the Canadian Television Fund (CTF).

Introduction

For nearly five years, the CTF has sought to increase the presence, on the entire broadcasting system, of high-quality Canadian programming produced in both official languages and by both the majority and minority official language production sectors, to improve the capacity of the Canadian television production and broadcasting sectors to produce and distribute television programs and to promote job creation.

In March 2000, Canadian Heritage commissioned an independent review of the CTF. The ensuing report A Review of the Canadian Television Fund and its Impact on the Industry and the Economy, Final Report: KPMG outlined a number of recommendations on future directions of the CTF.

The Department of Canadian Heritage wishes to obtain comments on the future directions of the CTF, including its structure, operation and administration in order to build on the CTF's success and ensure its continued adaptation to the new realities of the world of television production.

Interested parties who wish to obtain more information about the CTF can obtain, in electronic format, the CTF's objectives, guide, guidelines and activity report on its Internet site at www.canadiantelevisionfund.ca. Persons who wish to obtain a paper version of these documents may contact the CTF toll-free at 1-877-975-0766.

Persons who wish to obtain a copy of the final evaluation report can do so on the Internet site of the Department of Canadian Heritage at http://www.pch.gc.ca/culture/brdcstng/ctf-fct/pubs/ report-rapport/english.html, or by contacting Mr. Kevin Hill in the Corporate Review Branch of Canadian Heritage at (819) 994-1018.

For further information, contact Mr. Jean Guérette, Broadcasting and Innovation Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage at (819) 997-7449.

Comments may be forwarded to the Broadcasting and Innovation Policy Branch of the Department of Canadian Heritage electronically (WordPerfect, Microsoft Word or HTML formats would be desirable) to the following address: ctf_fct@pch.gc.ca, or by mail to the attention of Mr. Jean Guérette, Broadcasting and Innovation Policy Branch, 3-15 Eddy Street, Hull, Quebec K1A 0M5. Observations submitted in electronic format will be available on the Department's Web site at www.pch.gc.ca/culture/ brdcstng/wn-qdn/english.htm in the official language and format in which they were submitted.

All comments must be submitted by September 15, 2000.

July 22, 2000

JEAN GUÉRETTE
Director General
Broadcasting Policy and Innovation

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Agreement Respecting Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans, Mercury in Dental Amalgams, Mercury-containing Lamps, and Petroleum Hydrocarbons in soil.

Notice is hereby given that the Minister of the Environment ("the Minister") has negotiated the annexed proposed agreements with the provincial and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec. The Minister is publishing the proposed agreements in accordance with subsection 9(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote a).

Canada-wide standards are being developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (with the exception of Quebec) under the framework of the Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization and the Canada-Wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement. The Ministers (except Quebec) accepted in principle the proposed agreements in June 2000. They are also considering the options that are identified in the proposed agreements in square brackets and intend to sign agreements in the fall of 2000.

Interested persons requiring additional information should refer to the Web site of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment at http://www.ccme.ca/ccme or contact Cynthia Wright, Director General, Strategic Priorities Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment, Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3 (DGSPD@ec.gc.ca).

Interested persons may, within 60 days after the publication of this notice, file with the Minister comments or a notice of objection with respect to the proposed agreements and the identified options. All such comments and notices must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Cynthia Wright, Director General, Strategic Priorities Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment, Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3 (DGSPD@ec.gc.ca).

A person who provides information to the Minister may submit an accompanying request of confidentiality under section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

DAVID ANDERSON
Minister of the Environment

CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PHC) IN SOIL

These Canada-Wide Standards (CWS) for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil are established pursuant to the 1998 Canada-wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and its Canada-wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement.

The PHC CWS is a remedial standard for contaminated soil and subsoil occurring in four land use categories. The standard is grounded in the science of risk assessment and can be applied at any of three "Tiers": Tier 1 — generic numerical levels; Tier 2 — adjustments to Tier 1 levels based on site-specific information; Tier 3 — site-specific risk assessment. The same high level of environmental and human health protection is required at all three tiers.

Because the PHC CWS is tiered and risk-based there is necessarily some complexity in its development and application. Details regarding development and application of the standards are provided in a Technical Supplement.

The PHC CWS was developed with the input of four multi-stakeholder technical advisory groups and one dedicated working group involving the Canadian oil and gas industry, government and an academic chair. The PHC CWS represents a consensus view of the national Development Committee, developed with the assistance and input of the technical advisory groups.

Rationale

Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) are used in nearly every facet of Canadian life. They provide energy to heat our homes and places of work, fuel our transportation systems, power manufacturing processes and tools, as well as providing a source for the numerous synthetic materials we take for granted in our lives. Used as intended, PHC provide great benefits to society. However, when released to the soil environment as raw feedstocks or refined fuels or lubricants, a number of problems can result. These include fire/explosion hazard, human and environmental toxicity, movement through soil to air or water, odour, and impairment of soil processes such as water retention and nutrient cycling.

About 60% of Canada's contaminated sites involve petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) contamination that, left unaddressed, impairs the quality and uses of both land and water. Presently, management of these sites across Canada varies considerably and generally lacks an adequate scientific basis — resulting in over- and under-management. Where over-management occurs, land sale transactions and real estate redevelopment are limited by remediation costs. Under-managed sites continue to pose risks to human and environmental health. The PHC Canada-wide Standard will provide a consistent approach to managing PHC-contaminated sites across the country.

Definitions

Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) is a general term used to describe mixtures of organic compounds found in or derived from geological substances such as oil, bitumen and coal. For the purposes of this CWS, PHC are considered to be comprised of 4 fractions as defined in Part 1. PHC exclude — for the purposes of this standard — known carcinogens such as benzene and benzo(a)pyrene, which are addressed as target compounds. Because of the relatively long history of managing toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes ("TEX") as target compounds, these are also excluded from PHC.

Context

Petroleum products released to the environment typically contain thousands of compounds, in varying proportions, composed predominantly of carbon and hydrogen, with minor amounts of nitrogen, sulphur and oxygen. The properties of PHC contamination in soils varies with the petroleum source, soil type, the composition, degree of processing (crude, blended or refined), and the extent of weathering caused by exposure to the environment.

The complexity of PHC, and the extreme variability of sources and site-specific circumstances, complicates assessment of the human and environmental health risks associated with PHC contamination in soil.

PHC contamination in soil is a concern for a number of reasons. First, the chemically reactive nature and volatility of PHC can pose a fire/explosion hazard, especially if vapours enter confined spaces. Second, most PHC constituents are toxic to some degree. Third, lighter hydrocarbons (i.e. those of lower molecular weights) are mobile and can become a problem at considerable distances from their point of release due to transport in ground, water or air. Fourth, larger and branched-chain hydrocarbons are persistent in the environment. Fifth, PHC may create aesthetic problems such as offensive odour, taste or appearance in environmental media. Finally, under some conditions, PHC can degrade soil quality by interfering with water retention and transmission, and with nutrient supplies.

Canadian regulatory agencies have responded to these concerns with assessment and remediation requirements where PHC contaminate soils and groundwater. A blend of generic guidelines and site-specific, risk-based approaches has emerged across Canada, but there is very little consistency across jurisdictions in the rationale for guidelines, numerical values provided, or application to land uses.

The CWS is founded on documented and scientifically defensible risk-based methodology, namely the CCME Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines and the American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) Risk-based Corrective Action (RBCA) — and additions/improvements thereon, including the Atlantic Partners in RBCA Implementation (PIRI) (see Technical Supplement, section 1). Consequently, the derivation of the CWS involves explicitly listed receptors — both human and ecological, and the levels of protection accorded. It also involves defined exposure scenarios, and documented underlying assumptions, equations and policies (see Technical Supplement, sections 1 and 2).

Moreover, a vast array of analytical chemistry options exists for quantifying hydrocarbons in soil. Various methods have been developed to measure most or part of the hydrocarbons present in a sample based on different sampling, storage, extraction, purification, quantification, and data treatment approaches. Lack of measurement standardization has led to high variability in results and confusion for users of the data. The PHC CWS includes an analytical reference method to promote consistency in PHC-in-soil measurement practices and to ensure comparability of data nationally (see Technical Supplement, section 4).

The CWS Tier-1 levels have been selected despite gaps and uncertainties in some of the information used to support them. Nevertheless, the information available is sufficient to conclude that implementing the CWS will protect the environment and is technically and economically feasible. In this regard, jurisdictions will have considerable flexibility in the detailed design of jurisdictional plans and an opportunity to reduce information gaps and uncertainties.

Part 1:

Numerical Targets and Timeframes

The PHC CWS is a remedial standard. The standard does not specify timelines that jurisdictions must follow in remediating PHC contaminated sites. Rather, it specifies consistent methods and outcomes for assessment and management of such sites. The CWS requires jurisdictions to commit to timelines for implementation of this consistent assessment and management approach, however.

The PHC CWS is based on the assessment and consistent management of risks posed to human, plants, animals and environmental processes under four common uses of land — agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial, and industrial. The standard is laid out in three tiers, which incorporate different amounts of site-specific information. Environmental and human health protection goals do not change between the tiers. Additional site-specific information available at Tiers 2 and 3 is used to manage risks through more precise knowledge of actual or potential exposure.

The environmental and human health protection goals of the PHC CWS are stated in the Tier 1 levels. A summary of Tier 1 levels is provided in Table 1. Additional Tier 1 levels are provided in the Technical Supplement along with Tier 2 and Tier 3 guidance. To develop these levels, the Development Committee identified — in consultation with stakeholders — for each land use: (1) the receptors and resources to be protected, (2) the pathways by which each could be exposed, and (3) the tolerable exposure along all applicable receptor/exposure pathway combinations. These tolerable exposures acknowledge that people may experience PHC exposures unrelated to contaminated soil and adjustments for known or expected exposures are made. Under Tier 1 and many Tier-2 approaches, exposures are managed below the tolerable level through reduction of PHC concentrations in the soil. Some Tier-2 and Tier-3 approaches achieve the same result by reducing exposures through engineered and/or institutional controls. The former approach is preferred; however, the latter is needed in some cases as indicated by socio-economic considerations. Irrespective of the approach chosen, the same high level of environmental and human health protection is required at each Tier.

Tier-1 levels are used when the proponent accepts the base assumptions and parameters in the Tier-1 exposure scenario. Tier-2 levels may be generated and used when site conditions exist that significantly modify the exposure and risk scenarios. Tier-3 levels are based on site-specific assessment and management of risks.

The PHC CWS implementation differs from other CWS. The trigger for remedial action is usually the need to act on a site-by-site basis to accommodate a new or intensified land use, and thus avoid human and ecological exposure to PHC during the modified land use. In such cases, the timeframe for achieving target cleanup levels at a particular site will depend largely upon the timeframe associated with the proposed land use for the site. The CWS will also find application in the cleanup and restoration phases of responses to pollution emergencies involving petroleum products and crude oils.

One of the guiding principles of the CCME Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines is that impairment of relatively clean soil up to guideline levels is not advocated. Consistent with the principle, the PHC CWS target levels are not intended to be used as 'pollute-up-to levels' for uncontaminated land.

Tier 1: Numerical Levels for Different Land Uses

Tier-1 numerical levels are summarized in Table 1, where:

— "Fraction" refers to the equivalent normal straight-chain hydrocarbon (nC) boiling point ranges (Fraction #1: nC6 to nC10; Fraction #2: >nC10 to nC16; Fraction #3: >nC16 to nC34; and, Fraction #4: nC35+).

— "Coarse" means coarse-textured soil having a median grain size of >75 &microm as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials.

— "Fine" means fine-textured soil having a median grain size of ≤ 75 &microm as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials.

— Levels without parentheses do not include consideration of the soil-to-groundwater contamination pathway.

— Levels within parentheses do include protection of groundwater.

Table 1. Summary of Tier 1 Levels (mg/kg) for surface soil.^*

Land Use	Soil Texture	Frac- tion 1	Frac- tion 2	Frac- tion 3	Frac- tion 4
Agricultural	Coarse-grained soil	130	450 (90^a)	400	2800
	Fine-grained soil	260 (180^b)	900 (250^b)	800	5600
Residential/ Parkland	Coarse-grained soil	30^c	150^c (90^a)	400	2800
	Fine-grained soil	260 (180^b)	900 (250^b)	800	5600
Commercial	Coarse-grained soil	310 (300^a)	760 (90^a)	1700	3300
	Fine-grained soil	660 (180^b)	1500 (250^b)	2500	6600
Industrial	Coarse-grained soil	310 (300^a)	760 (90^a)	1700	3300
	Fine-grained soil	660 (180^b)	1500 (250^b)	2500	6600

^* Additional Tier 1 levels are presented in Technical Supplement.

^aWhere applicable, for protection against contaminated groundwater discharge to an adjacent surface water body.

^bWhere applicable, for protection of potable groundwater.

^cassumes contamination near residence with slab-on-grade construction.

Tier 2: Site-specific Adjustments to Tier-1 Levels

Tier-2 levels may be generated and used when site-specific information indicates that site conditions exist that modify human or ecological exposure to PHC contamination and, thereby, alter risks significantly, relative to the generic conditions used to derive Tier-1 levels.

Thus, Tier-2 levels are derived on a site-by-site basis using site-specific parameters where necessary; the potentially adjustable parameters and corresponding calculation protocols are summarized and referenced in the Technical Supplement (section 2).

Tier 3: Site-specific Risk Assessment and Management

The process of developing site-specific cleanup levels and related management options requires the appropriate use of both general and site-specific information. Background information and guiding principles have been established to direct and focus this process, and are documented in the Guidance Manual for Developing Site-specific Soil Quality Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME 1996). The use of these guiding principles in developing Tier 3 standards is outlined in the Technical Supplement.

Additional guidance in this connection is also available in A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance (CCME, 1995) and Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol I (USEPA 1989). Other appropriate guidance may also be available from the appropriate jurisdictional authority.

Part 2:

Implementation

Because environmental issues related to PHC release to soil are principally limited to intra-jurisdictional effects, Clause 6.1 of the CWS Sub-agreement applies for this CWS. This means that specific measures undertaken by each government to meet this CWS will be at the discretion of each jurisdiction.

Jurisdictions agree to review current programs and tools and, as required, develop and activate jurisdictional implementation plans to integrate the CWS or ensure equal or better protection.

Review

The CWS will be reviewed as follows:

By the end of year 2003, review of additional scientific, technical and economic analysis to reduce information gaps and uncertainties and allow revision of the PHC CWS in the year 2005 as appropriate.

Reporting on Progress

Progress towards meeting the above provisions will be reported as follows:

(a) to the respective publics of each jurisdiction on a regular basis, the timing and scope of reporting to be determined by each jurisdiction; and,

(b) to Ministers, with comprehensive reports at five-year intervals beginning in year 2003.

Administration

Jurisdictions will review and renew Part 2 and the Annexes five years from coming into effect.

Any party may withdraw from these Canada-wide Standards upon three month's notice.

These Canada-wide Standards come into effect for each jurisdicstion on the date of signature by the jurisdiction.

Ministers of Environment

jurisdiction	signature	date
Alberta	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
British Columbia	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Canada	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Manitoba	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
New Brunswick	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Newfoundland	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Northwest Territories	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Nova Scotia	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Nunavut	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Ontario	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Prince Edward Island	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Quebec	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Saskatchewan	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Yukon	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date

CANADA-WIDE STANDARD for MERCURY-CONTAINING LAMPS

Preamble

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment determined that mercury levels in fish and wildlife across Canada warrant efforts to reduce atmospheric and waterborne emissions derived from both deliberate use of mercury and from incidental releases of mercury.

Restrictions on the human consumption of fish in order to safeguard the health of both high fish consumers (sustenance and commercial fishers) and sensitive populations (infants, children and women of childbearing age) are widespread. Some of these restrictions are derived from lakes naturally high in mercury, others in lakes and rivers contaminated by historical point source discharges and still others in waters remote from identifiable sources. Traditional lifestyles may be profoundly influenced by mercury contamination.

Mercury levels in fish pose an additional, largely unquantified risk to fish-eating wildlife. Isolated examples of toxicity to loons and otters suggest the potential for large scale and/or widespread impacts. Just as mercury levels in fish affect their consumption by humans, some levels in fish may affect wildlife which consume them. In both instances, the mercury causing the impacts is derived from both natural and anthropogenic sources.

The combined impacts of mercury contamination in Canada are difficult to quantify. The exact proportion of the impact which can be ascribed to natural mercury and to past and present anthropogenic releases cannot presently be quantified. Because it is a natural and persistent bioaccumulative element which can be transported many miles in the atmosphere, mercury can have impacts many years and many miles removed from its original source. The sediment record from remote lakes has been generally interpreted to support a 2 to 3 fold increase in mercury deposition over natural levels. A common thread through all mercury impacts is that deposition to water bodies from anthropogenic emissions poses a threat to human and ecosystem health, and that reduced deposition will contribute, in time, to reduced impacts.

Under a variety of regional, national, binational and international programs, treaties and agreements, mercury has been consistently targeted for emission reductions. Such a policy position is consistent with the CCME Policy for the Management of Toxic Substances which identifies that mercury shall be managed through its lifecycle to minimize releases. This is also consistent with the precautionary approach endorsed in the Harmonization Accord and Canada Wide Standards Sub-agreement. Ministers of the Environment have thus agreed to undertake and promote cost-effective actions to achieve further precautionary reductions in anthropogenic emissions (releases to the air, water and soil) of mercury.

A Canada-wide Standard for mercury-containing lamps has been proposed below. The proposed Canada-wide Standard is intended to address significant "points of intervention" in the complex life-cycle of this material so as to reduce environmental releases of mercury. A major consideration was what final "end of life" fate was "appropriate" for mercury products. Evidence suggests that some fluorescent lamp breakage during garbage collection and landfilling produces mercury emissions at the working face of the landfill, as trucks dump the garbage and it is compacted and covered. Broken lamps, plus other mercury containing products such as batteries, thermostats, old paints, etc. may produce some emissions even when covered with soil, as a result of methane gas formation and release, as well as some losses via leachate. For other "products" the end-of-life may be a hazardous waste landfill, an incinerator or even farm fields.

Mercury-containing lamps emit 150 kg/yr to the atmosphere from breakage and 750 kg/yr to landfills. Based upon the measured or potential emissions from deliberate use of mercury-containing lamps, approaches to improve control over these products during their life-cycles were investigated for ways to reduce mercury emissions. This standard represents cost-effective "interventions" in the life-cycle of the materials in question to reduce releases without eliminating the beneficial use of these products.

PART 1:

Mercury-Containing Lamps

Rationale for standard

Mercury-containing lamps release mercury at three significant points in their life. When in use, the power used for lighting results in mercury emissions. When lamps burn-out, they normally contain less than 1 mg mercury vapour, which is released when the lamp is broken, resulting in about 150 kg/yr emitted in Canada. Some mercury is emitted through the incineration of lamps in municipal waste. Waste lamps, whether broken or intact, contribute about 750 kg/yr of mercury to landfill each year bound to the phosphor in the glass. This mercury may be emitted with methane gas or landfill leachate, though accurate inventories are not available for either emission. Although these lamps contain mercury, they are more energy efficient and longer lasting than incandescent lamps.

More details can be found in Appendix 1.

Nature and application:

The manufacturers of mercury-containing lamps continue to reduce the mercury content of the lamps, the industry average declining from 48 mg/lamp in 1985 to 12 mg/lamp today. Ongoing efforts to reduce mercury use will translate directly into reduced emissions due to breakage and reduced mercury going into landfills. Approximately 75% of mercury-containing lamps in Canada are 4 foot (T-8 or T-12) fluorescent lamps. The major uses of mercury-containing lamps are in industrial, commercial and institutional applications. Currently, about 1/3 of the lighting market is composed of T-8 lamps, which are more energy efficient than the older T-12 lamps. In the pursuit of energy efficiency, and to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, more energy efficient lighting systems are expected to be installed in large buildings in Canada, and the rate of installation can be accelerated. Finally, it is feasible to directly intercept mercury emissions by either recycling lamps or using "crushers" prior to landfilling. Recycling at the end of the life-cycle can recover several tonnes of mercury that would otherwise be released to the environment. Hence the objective of the Canada-wide Standard is to reduce mercury releases to the environment (see footnote 1) at several points in the life-cycle of mercury-containing lamps.

Numeric targets and timeframes:

The CWS is comprised of two components:

— A 70% reduction by 2005 and an 80% reduction by 2010 in the average content of mercury in lamps sold in Canada, from a 1990 baseline.

— [Best efforts will be made to achieve] A national recycling or safe disposal (see footnote 2) rate of 25% by 2005 and 75% by 2010, from year 2000 levels.

PART 2:

Reporting on Progress:

Ministers will receive reports by jurisdictions and/or partners in the delivery of this standard in 2004, 2007 and 2012, and will ensure that a single public report is prepared and posted on the CCME web site for public access. The reports in 2004 and 2007 will reflect interim progress on achieving the CWS. The 2012 report will include an evaluation of this standard and a recommendation whether changes should be considered.

These reports will be accompanied by other information on additional outcomes, activities, research or issues which are relevant to the mercury CWSs and/or product sector under consideration. Examples of such reporting include scientific information on mercury fate and impacts from product life-cycles. More details on reporting on progress are available in Annex 1.

Each jurisdiction will detail the means of obtaining achievement in a manner consistent with the typical or desired programs for the affected sector, so as not to impose an unnecessary level of reporting duplication upon the jurisdictions.

Administration:

Jurisdictions will review and renew Part 2 and Annex 1 five years from coming into effect.

Any party may withdraw from this Canada-Wide Standard upon three month's notice.

This Canada-Wide Standard comes into effect for each jurisdiction on the date of signature by the jurisdiction.

Ministers of Environment

jurisdiction	signature	date
Alberta	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
British Columbia	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Canada	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Manitoba	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
New Brunswick	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Newfoundland	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Northwest Territories	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Nova Scotia	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Nunavut	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Ontario	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Prince Edward Island	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Quebec	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Saskatchewan	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Yukon	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date

ANNEX 1

MERCURY REPORTING FRAMEWORK

Introduction

Under the Harmonization Accord and its Canada-wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement, all jurisdictions are to report to the public and to Ministers on their progress towards achieving the CWSs for mercury.

This reporting framework is intended to provide a transparent and consistent mechanism for reporting by jurisdictions in a fashion which minimizes resource requirements for government and industry alike, while maximizing the availability of information on achievement of these standards.

The framework addresses:

(1) frequency, timing and scope of reporting

(2) guidance as to the means of determining compliance/ achievement of the CWS

(3) common measurement parameters for reporting purposes

(4) data management and public reporting

Frequency, timing and scope of reporting

The reporting schedule will be tied to assessing the performance of the governments and partners in meeting the benchmarks and timelines relevant to the standards. The reports issued in 2004 and 2007 will include intermediate progress by each product sector and the third report in 2012 will provide an overall evaluation of compliance for all standards and any recommendations for revisions. Jurisdictions and partners will cooperate to produce a single public report, under the guidance of CCME, to be posted on the CCME web site for public access. This information is intended to show performance on a national basis.

Means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS

The Canada-wide Standard for mercury-containing lamps has been developed with a view towards a largely voluntary approach. Compliance may be regulated or legally enforced in some areas, such as landfill bans on waste from mercury-containing lamps. As such, it is important that governments and/or partners work together to share information in the event that some regional implementation takes place, so that adjustments can be made to ensure that a level playing field exists.

Common measurement parameters for reporting purposes

Each report will include specific measures for the purposes of public reporting:

(a) average mercury content (4 foot lamp standard) in mercury-containing lamps as reported by the Electro-Federation Canada;

(b) the number of lamps recycled or safely disposed of; and

Data management and public reporting

A consolidated data-report will be made available to all jurisdictions and to the Ministers, along with the draft public report, prior to formal release of the public report. The public report will be released upon approval by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Jurisdictions will provide a report prior to September 30 (2004, 2007, 2012) so that the consolidated report can be prepared for review and approval. A draft public report will be provided for review and consideration prior to the Ministers' meeting at which public release is anticipated. That public report will be posted to the CCME web site upon approval by the Council of Ministers. Jurisdictions are encouraged to provide reference to the CCME web site and/or pointers in their own web sites in order to ensure a single location for mercury CWSs reporting should errors/ miscalculations have to be corrected at some time.

In addition to the consolidated public reporting on mercury CWSs, jurisdictions must provide a contact for additional information in the advent that the public wishes to access achievement information. Such data will be supplied in a manner consistent with the normal data-reporting/compliance reporting procedures of the jurisdiction in question.

APPENDIX 1

Detailed Rationale for Mercury-Containing Lamps Standard

Mercury-containing lamps are an extremely energy efficient lighting medium, much more efficient than incandescent lamps. To date a replacement for mercury in lamps has not been identified that combines the energy efficiency and life-span (20,000 hours) typical of fluorescent lamps. The energy efficiency of fluorescent lamps confers the added benefit of reduced mercury emissions from the power generated to provide the lighting. About 4000 "lighting products" contain mercury, but the biggest seller and major component of lighting is the "four-foot lamp", which in 2000 contains on average 12 mg/lamp of mercury. When lamps burn-out, they normally contain about 1 mg mercury vapour, which is released when the lamp is broken. Approximately 150 kg/yr is emitted to the atmosphere from lamp breakage enroute to landfills in Canada, and some mercury is emitted through the incineration of municipal waste. Recently new technology has been developed to capture the mercury vapour before landfilling or recycling (lamp crushers with carbon filters).

Waste lamps, whether broken or intact, pose an additional waste management issue. About 750 kg/yr of mercury goes to landfills each year bound to the phosphor in the glass. This mercury can be leached from the glass under some conditions, or may evaporate from broken lamps exposed to air, sunlight and heat. The mercury bound to the glass is sufficient that 20 lamps typically exceed the threshold for designation as hazardous waste. This threshold, based upon a "leachate test", is changing as lamp mercury contents have declined. Currently, less than 1% of the fluorescent lamps are recycled, in part due to costs ($0.30 to 0.60 per lamp) and the absence of an infrastructure. Regulatory barriers to efficient recovery, storage and shipping of used lamps may also be an impediment.

The energy efficiency of fluorescent lamps varies. Newer more energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps are much more energy efficient than incandescent lamps. Newer T-8 lamps are 30% more energy efficient than the older T-12 lamps, so replacing all T-12s with T-8s (accompanied by energy efficient ballasts) would automatically reduce energy use by 30% in each building where the switch was made.

CANADA-WIDE STANDARD for MERCURY IN DENTAL AMALGAMS

Preamble

A Canada-wide Standard for dental amalgam has been proposed below. The proposed Canada-wide Standard is intended to address significant "points of intervention" in the complex life-cycle of this material so as to reduce environmental releases of mercury. A major consideration was what final "end of life" fate was "appropriate" for mercury products. Evidence suggests that landfilling produces mercury emissions at the working face of the landfill, as trucks dump the garbage and it is compacted and covered. Dental amalgam, plus other mercury containing products such as lamps, batteries, thermostats, old paints etc., may produce some emissions even when covered with soil, as a result of methane gas formation and release, as well as some losses via leachate. For other "products" the end-of-life may be a hazardous waste landfill, an incinerator or even farm fields.

Dental amalgam may contribute about 800 kg/yr to sewage systems, 800 kg/yr to municipal garbage and landfills, 350 kg/yr to biomedical waste and 250 kg/yr to recycling. These estimates have not been confirmed by the dental community.

Based upon the measured or potential emissions from deliberate use of dental amalgam, approaches to improve control over this product during its life-cycle were investigated for ways to reduce mercury emissions. This standard represents cost-effective "interventions" in the life-cycle of the material in question to reduce releases without eliminating the beneficial use of this product.

PART 1:

Dental Amalgam (see footnote 3)

Rationale for standard

Dental amalgam remains a well-suited material for the restoration of dental health in Canada, though the development of synthetic resins and other substitutes has resulted in a decline in the use of amalgam. Approximately 1.3 T/yr of mercury in new filling material is placed each year in the mouths of Canadians. However, approximately 2 Tonnes/yr of mercury in amalgam waste is generated from the removal of old fillings and from the placing of new fillings. Some is collected and recycled or properly disposed of, while some other amalgam particles may end up in the sewage systems, contaminating the biosolids produced or being discharged to the aquatic environment. It is believed that more than 1/3 of the mercury loadings to sewage systems is derived from dental practices. For this reason the standard seeks to reduce emissions from dental offices.

More details can be found in Appendix 1.

Nature and application:

The dental community in Canada can use amalgam traps to collect the waste before it enters the sewage systems and either recycle the waste amalgam or dispose of it appropriately. Collected waste amalgam fails most leachate tests, and as such is normally designated as "hazardous" so that once collected it must be stored, shipped and disposed of in accordance with provincial waste regulations.

The objective of the Canada-wide Standard is to substantially reduce releases of mercury in waste amalgam from dental practices.

Numeric targets and timeframes:

The Canada-wide Standard is the application of "best management practices (see footnote 4) "to achieve an 95% national reduction in mercury releases from dental amalgam waste discharges to the environment (see footnote 5), by 2005, from a base year of 2000.

PART 2:

Reporting on Progress:

Ministers will receive reports by jurisdictions and/or partners in the delivery of this standard in 2004 and 2007, and will ensure that a single public report is prepared and posted on the CCME web site for public access. The report in 2004 will reflect interim progress on achieving the CWS. The 2007 report will include an evaluation of this standard and a recommendation whether changes should be considered.

These reports will be accompanied by other information on additional outcomes, activities, research or issues which are relevant to the mercury CWS and/or product sector under consideration. Examples of such reporting include scientific information on mercury fate, and impacts from product life-cycles, such as methylation in sewage treatment plants. More details on reporting on progress are available in Annex 1.

Administration:

Jurisdictions will review and renew Part 2 and Annex 1 five years from coming into effect.

Any party may withdraw from this Canada-Wide Standard upon three month's notice.

This Canada-Wide Standard comes into effect for each jurisdiction on the date of signature by the jurisdiction.

Ministers of Environment

jurisdiction	signature	date
Alberta	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
British Columbia	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Canada	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Manitoba	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
New Brunswick	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Newfoundland	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Northwest Territories	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Nova Scotia	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Nunavut	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Ontario	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Prince Edward Island	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Quebec	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Saskatchewan	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Yukon	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date

ANNEX 1

MERCURY REPORTING FRAMEWORK

Introduction

The framework addresses:

(1) frequency, timing and scope of reporting

(2) guidance as to the means of determining compliance/ achievement of the CWS

(3) common measurement parameters for reporting purposes

(4) data management and public reporting

Frequency, timing and scope of reporting

The reporting schedule will be tied to assessing the performance of the governments and partners in meeting the benchmarks and timelines relevant to the standards. The report issued in 2004 will include intermediate progress by this product sector and the report in 2007 will provide an overall evaluation of compliance for the standard and any recommendations for revisions. Jurisdictions and partners will cooperate to produce a single public report, under the guidance of CCME, to be posted on the CCME web site for public access. This information is intended to show performance on a national basis.

Means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS

The Canada-wide Standard for dental amalgam has been developed with a view towards a largely voluntary approach. Compliance may be regulated or legally enforced in some areas, such as sewer use bylaws in municipalities. As such, it is important that governments and/or partners work together to share information in the event that some regional implementation takes place, so that adjustments can be made to ensure that a level playing field exists.

Common measurement parameters for reporting purposes

Each report will include specific measures for the purposes of public reporting:

(a) Dental amalgam quantities (kg mercury in waste amalgam) collected, recycled and disposed of, along with the number of dentists adopting best practices; and

(b) Average weighted mercury content of sewage sludge, as a means of tracking progress of dental and other sewer control activities.

Data management and public reporting

Jurisdictions will provide a report prior to September 30 (2004 and 2007) so that the consolidated report can be prepared for review and approval. A draft public report will be provided for review and consideration prior to the Ministers' meeting at which public release is anticipated. That public report will be posted to the CCME web site upon approval by the Council of Ministers. Jurisdictions are encouraged to provide reference to the CCME web site and/or pointers in their own web sites in order to ensure a single location for mercury CWSs reporting should errors/ miscalculations have to be corrected at some time.

APPENDIX 1

Detailed rationale for dental amalgam standard

Mercury use as a component of dental amalgam has been a mainstay of dental health in Canada for decades. Currently, about 1.3 T/yr of mercury in new amalgam is placed in patients' mouths in Canada. It remains the material of choice for filling grinding surfaces of teeth, except where the patient may have an amalgam sensitivity. Amalgam is also the filling of choice in some communities where it is the most cost-effective material, but it is being used less and less as alternatives are developed. These alternatives may be used for cosmetic purposes or because of patient choice. It is the removal of old fillings that creates the "life-cycle issue", as removal results in amalgam particles being vacuumed from the mouth, and discharged to sewage systems.

Although it is very difficult to inventory the waste discharge of amalgam, it is believed that 2 Tonnes/yr of mercury in dental amalgam waste is generated from the removal of old fillings. The fate of this waste is complex. The coarse particles of waste amalgam, representing 60-70% by mass of the old fillings, are collected in chair-side traps and filters, and may be either recycled, disposed of in solid waste, or rinsed into sewage systems. About 25-35% of the fillings mass (800 kg/yr of mercury) is made up of fine particles that are discharged to sewage systems. These particles contaminate sewage treatment plant grit traps and sludges. About 5% of the amalgam fillings end up as extremely fine particles or dissolved mercury in waste water, which may not be captured in a sewage treatment plant and may be discharged to the aquatic environment.

The dental community is composed of health care professionals who share a concern for the environment. Representatives of the profession have been working with governments to develop "best management practices" and "codes of practice" for waste management within dental clinics. One of the major components of these discussions is the implementation of amalgam traps that capture 95% of the amalgam particles (coarse and moderately sized) before the waste enters the sewers. Less than 1% of Canada's 13,000 dentists who do amalgam placement and removal (of a total of 15,000 dentists) currently employee amalgam traps on their sewerage lines, despite the availability of ISO Certified units capable of a 95% capture rate. This shortfall reflects the recent availability of the equipment, the requirement to set up the recycling infrastructure, government regulations that may be a barrier to recycling and, to a lesser degree, the costs involved. In addition, there is some debate whether the amalgam discharged from dental offices poses an environmental threat, as it is considered by some dental groups to be "inert".

Several concerns have led to the proposal that adoption of amalgam traps by Canada's dentists is appropriate. The precautionary principle would suggest using waste diversion, if cost-effective, to limit environmental releases in the absence of conclusive proof that the amalgam particles are inert. Also there is some concern that the fine particles discharged by dentists (along with mercury from other sources) may result in the emission of methyl-mercury to the atmosphere through microbial action in the sewers and/or sewage treatment plants. Finally evidence from some European investigations suggests that installation of amalgam traps reduces the discharge of mercury from sewage treatment plants into lakes and rivers, where fish may be accumulating mercury that would pose a threat to wildlife or human consumers.

CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for DIOXINS AND FURANS

Preamble

Dioxins and Furans

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), commonly known as dioxins and furans, are toxic, persistent, bioaccumulative, and result predominantly from human activity. Due to their extraordinary environmental persistence and capacity to accumulate in biological tissues, dioxins and furans are slated for virtual elimination under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the federal Toxic Substances Management Policy (TSMP) and the CCME Policy for the Management of Toxic Substances.

The presence of dioxins and furans in the Canadian environment can be attributed to three principal sources: point source discharges (to water, air and soil), contamination from in situ dioxins and furans, and loadings from the long-range transportation of air pollutants (LRTAP).

LRTAP is the focus of multilateral conventions and bilateral accords at the international level.

Dioxin and furan contamination found in soil, water, sediments, and tissues (in situ contamination), is the subject of national guidelines for dioxins and furans. These guidelines outline ambient or "alert levels" which may be used by jurisdictions as benchmarks for the management and monitoring of dioxins and furans already present in the environment.

Point source discharges to water have been the target of aggressive federal and provincial regulation, as well as industry innovation and change. Discharges of dioxins & furans to the aquatic environment reached non-measurable levels in 1995.

Development of the Canada-wide Standard

The Canada-wide Standards process has focussed on anthropogenic sources that are releasing dioxins and furans to the atmosphere and soil in a continuous process.

In January 1999, the Federal/Provincial Task Force on Dioxins and Furans released the Dioxins and Furans and Hexachlorobenzene Inventory of Releases which documented the current understanding of anthropogenic sources in Canada releasing dioxins and furans. The Inventory of Releases lists emissions from over 20 sectors by province and territory, and provides national summaries for each sector.

Initial efforts have focused on atmospheric releases, the most complete component of the Inventory. Six priority sectors, varying from regional to national in scope, accounting for about 80% of national emissions have been identified as priorities for early action. These are waste incineration (municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, sewage sludge and medical waste); burning salt laden wood in coastal pulp and paper boilers in British Columbia; residential wood combustion; iron sintering; electric arc furnace steel manufacturing; and conical municipal waste combustion in Newfoundland.

To date, CWSs have been developed for the coastal pulp and paper boiler and the incineration sectors. CWSs for the remaining priority sectors will be completed in 2001. Additional source sectors, many of which contribute very small amounts of dioxins and furans emissions, will also be addressed in 2001 as will releases to soil.

Development of CWSs for dioxins and furans has taken into consideration environmental benefits, available technologies, socio-economic impacts, opportunities for pollution prevention and collateral benefits from reductions in other pollutants.

In recognition of the ultimate goal of virtual elimination, pollution prevention is being encouraged as the preferred method for avoiding the creation of dioxins or reducing releases to the environment.

Wherever possible, work on the dioxins and furans CWSs has been coordinated with other ongoing processes (e.g. Mercury CWS and the Strategic Options Process). A multi-pollutant approach will be carried forward to the remaining sectors while ensuring that dioxins and furans issues are addressed and that the ultimate goal of virtual elimination is kept clearly in mind. Opportunities for a multi-pollutant approach will also be pursued as part of the implementation of the Dioxins and Furans Canada-wide Standard.

During development of the inventory, it was realized that the data on dioxins and furans is limited. The information in the dioxins and furans inventory will be refined and updated on a regular basis through a variety of sources including the National Pollutants Release Inventory (NPRI) as a means of tracking progress and as a means of identifying any future sources of releases that must be addressed.

PART 1:

Pulp and Paper Boilers Burning Salt Laden Wood

Rationale for standard

Unique to British Columbia, the burning of salt laden wood results in an annual release of 8.6 g TEQ/year to the atmosphere or 4.3 percent of the national total of dioxin and furans emissions documented in the inventory of releases prepared under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

As a result of mill closures and voluntary industry initiatives that have reduced atmospheric releases, the current total represents a 25% reduction from 1990 releases.

Dioxins and furans emitted from coastal pulp and paper mills are created through the burning of salt contaminated hogged fuel. Logs transported and stored in salt water take up chlorine into the bark. The bark is stripped from the logs and ground up to produce hogged fuel.

This material is then used as boiler fuel to produce heat and electrical energy for the pulp and paper process. Over 1.4 million oven dried tonnes of hogged fuel were used by the coastal pulp and paper industry in B.C. in 1998.

Nature and application:

The CWS for this sector consists of two components. The first component sets out numeric targets and timeframes for reducing emissions from new and existing boilers. This standard applies to boilers burning more than 10,000 oven dry metric tonnes per year of hogged fuel generated from wood transported or stored in salt water. All boilers currently reliant on hogged fuel generated from wood transported or stored in salt water currently consume in excess of 50,000 oven dry metric tonnes annually. As part of the implementation of this standard, procedures will be put in place to report on the salt content of the hogged fuel to ensure compliance with the standard.

The second component sets out a process for further examining pollution prevention opportunities to prevent the creation of dioxins and furans.

Numeric Target and Timeframe for Achieving Target

Dioxin and furan emissions will be less than 100 pg/m³ TEQ for new boilers constructed after the effective date of this standard.

Dioxin and furan emissions will be less than 500 pg/m³ TEQ for all existing boilers by 2006. "New" means a total replacement including firebox, heat transfer surfaces and air emission control equipment.

The standard for existing boilers is set pending the acquisition of further test data and controlled studies of boiler operation. Recognizing the ultimate objective of virtual elimination as set out in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the mill operators will voluntarily pursue further reductions in emissions during the period of the standard. In doing so the operators will conduct additional studies to identify the reasons for higher dioxin and furan emissions at some locations and explore and, as practicable, implement measures to achieve virtual elimination at all locations. Measures to be explored include physical and process modifications to prevent or reduce dioxin and furan formation as well as emission control upgrades and/or other pollution prevention measures.

Every boiler covered by this standard will be tested twice per year to determine the level of dioxin and furan air emissions for the years prior to 2003 and annually for the years 2003 and thereafter. Testing and reporting will be performed using methods and procedures acceptable to the responsible provincial ministry.

The standard for existing boilers will be reviewed in 2003 based on the results of the additional testing, the additional studies on dioxin and furan creation and opportunities to achieve virtual elimination and the examination of other pollution prevention opportunities.

Pollution Prevention Strategy

In addition to the continuing efforts of pulp and paper mill operators to capture emissions of dioxin and furans, emphasis will be placed on identifying and implementing opportunities to prevent the creation of dioxins and furans. A strategy identifying opportunities to eliminate the formation of dioxins and furans by the coastal pulp and paper industry will be developed through a multi-stakeholder process by December 31, 2001 to provide a framework for continual progress towards the elimination of dioxin and furans.

Recognizing that most opportunities for avoiding the creation of dioxins and furans fall beyond the exclusive influence of the coastal pulp and paper mill operators, preparation of this strategy must engage a wide range of stakeholders.

The range of issues to be addressed in developing the strategy could include:

— maximum allowable salt content for hogged fuel

— removal of chloride from logs

— hogged fuel washing and pressing

— options for blending hogged fuel of different salt levels

— alternatives to log handling, transportation and storage practices that rely on salt water

— impacts of the length of time entailed in transportation and storage on the salt content of hogged fuel

— inclusion of transportation modes and effects in eco-certification criteria

— in-plant opportunities to avoid creation of dioxins and furans

— alternative fuel opportunities and costs

— providing greater opportunities for market intervention by improving the understanding of the costs being imposed on the pulp and paper mills by current log handling and storage practices

Waste Incineration

Rationale for standard

Waste incineration has historically been responsible for a significant portion of the dioxins and furans emitted in Canada. The total release of dioxins and furans from this sector amounts to 44.9 g/ TEQ/y or 22.5% of the total releases to the atmosphere.

Improved exhaust gas controls to reduce emissions of acid gases and fine particulates or activated carbon injection systems have decreased emissions of both mercury and dioxins and furans from the municipal solid waste (MSW) sector. Dioxins and furans emissions from this sector are estimated to be approximately 8.4 g/yr. Many medical waste incinerators have closed for economic or environmental reasons. However, a range of medium-to small-sized facilities remain. Individually these are small sources, but as a sector they are significant, emitting an estimated 28.8 g/yr. Two additional incineration sectors, hazardous waste (7.6 g/yr) and sewage sludge (0.1 g/yr), are also addressed by the CWS.

A Canada-wide Standard for incineration of MSW in conical waste combusters in Newfoundland will be brought forward in 2001. Newfoundland has committed to reviewing the use of these facilities and to considering a phase-out strategy that will reduce emissions of dioxins and furans as well as mercury. These actions are also identified in the Mercury Canada-wide Standard accepted by the Council of Ministers in November 1999.

Actions to reduce national emissions require that any new facilities meet stringent limits, and that the bulk of the emissions from existing facilities be controlled through retrofits with control technology that is efficient at destroying dioxins and furans. Diverting waste from incinerators would result in less incineration overall and thus avoid creation of dioxins and furans. All facilities, and particularly smaller ones, may find that pollution prevention, waste segregation and diversion are options for either achieving the limit, or reducing "end-of-stack" expenditures, and during implementation all facilities should be encouraged to place a priority on reduced inputs rather than controlled releases.

Definitions:

Waste incinerator: a device, mechanism or structure constructed primarily to thermally treat (e.g., combust or pyrolyze) a waste for the purpose of reducing its volume, destroying a hazardous chemical present in the waste, or destroying pathogens present in the waste. This includes facilities where waste heat is recovered as a byproduct from the exhaust gases from an incinerator, but does not include industrial processes where fuel derived from waste is fired as an energy source as a matter incidental to the manufacture of the primary product. For the purpose of the Dioxins and Furans CWS, conical waste combusters are considered separately from other incineration sectors.

Municipal solid waste: any waste which might normally be disposed of in a non-secure landfill site if not incinerated (i.e., including non-hazardous solid wastes regardless of origin), but is not intended to include "clean" wood waste. Clean wood waste means waste from woodworking or forest product operations where the wood waste has not been treated with preservative chemicals (e.g., pentachlorophenol) or decorative coatings.

Medical waste: any waste which includes as a component any Biomedical Waste as defined in the February 1992 CCME Guidelines for the Management of Biomedical Waste in Canada, with the exception that animal wastes derived from animal health care or veterinary research and teaching establishments are excluded.

Determined efforts: Determined efforts include the ongoing review of opportunities for reductions and implementation of in-plant changes and/or emissions control upgrades that are technically and economically feasible and which confer on-going reductions in emissions. Where possible, dioxin and furan emission reductions will be determined by way of a one-time stack test conducted after implementation of the measures. Where testing is not possible or will not provide reliable results, an audit of the dioxin and furan emission reductions associated with waste diversion or other measures is an acceptable alternative. Opportunities for regional consolidation and/or phase-out of smaller facilities may also be considered.

Nature and application:

Emission limits are expressed as a concentration in the exhaust gas exiting the stack of the facility. New or expanding facilities will be expected to comply immediately with the standard, and it will be up to individual jurisdictions to determine what constitutes a significant expansion to trigger the standard. The limits for existing facilities are capable of being met using generally available technology or waste diversion. Larger facilities will be subject to stack testing as described in Annex 1 to verify compliance with the limit. Smaller medical and municipal facilities will have the option of reporting on an audit of the dioxin and furan emission reductions associated with waste diversion or other measures or conducting a one-time stack test, to illustrate progress towards the standard.

Numeric targets:

The following standards are a step towards achieving virtual elimination for dioxins and furans.

For new or expanding facilities of any size, application of best available pollution prevention and control techniques, such as a waste diversion program, to achieve a maximum concentration (see footnote 6)in the exhaust gases from the facility as follows:

incineration	maximum concentration
Municipal waste incineration	80pg I-TEQ/m³
Medical waste incineration	80pg I-TEQ/m³
Hazardous waste incineration (see footnote 7)	80pg I-TEQ/m³
Sewage sludge incineration	80pg I-TEQ/m³

For existing facilities application of best available pollution prevention and control techniques, to achieve a maximum concentration (see footnote 8) in the exhaust gases from the facility as follows:

incineration	maximum concentration
Municipal waste incineration
> [48 or 26] Tonnes/year (see footnote 9)	80pg I-TEQ/m³
< [48 or 26] Tonnes/year (see footnote 10)	80pg I-TEQ/m³
Medical waste incineration
[> 48 or 26 Tonnes/year](see footnote 11)	80pg I-TEQ/m³
[< 48 or 26 Tonnes/year] (see footnote 12)	80pg I-TEQ/m³
Hazardous waste incineration (see footnote 13)	80 pg I-TEQ/m³
Sewage sludge incineration	100 pg I-TEQ/m³

Timeframe for achieving the targets:

Any new or expanding facility will be required to design for and achieve compliance immediately upon attaining normal full scale operation, compliance to be confirmed by annual stack testing.

Based on determined efforts in working towards virtual elimination, existing facilities will be required to meet the standards on the following schedule:

facilities	year
Municipal waste incineration	2006
Medical waste incineration	2006
Hazardous waste incineration	2006
Sewage sludge incineration	2005

Pollution Prevention Strategy:

In addition to the continuing efforts of waste incinerator operators to destroy or capture emissions of dioxin and furans, emphasis will be placed on identifying and implementing opportunities to prevent the creation of dioxins and furans as well as emissions of air pollutants and ash quality generally. As an initial action with shared responsibility by all jurisdictions, strategies identifying opportunities to minimize waste incineration emissions of air pollutants including dioxins and furans will be developed through a multi-stakeholder process by December 31, 2001 to provide a framework for continual progress towards the elimination of dioxin and furans.

Recognizing that many opportunities for minimizing air pollutant and ash emissions and specifically avoiding the creation of dioxins and furans fall beyond the exclusive influence of the operators of waste incinerators, preparation of this strategy must engage a wide range of stakeholders.

The range of issues to be addressed in developing the strategy could include:

— waste diversion initiatives to minimize the generation of wastes destined for disposal (waste reduction, material reuse options)

— waste segregation initiatives aimed at materials with greater potential to generate emissions of dioxins and furans or other air pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury, other heavy metals) and aimed at diverting those wastes to recycling or other non-incineration disposal options

— combustion control strategies to optimize performance of existing combustors at destroying pollutants of concern

— use of alternative disposal or treatment technologies (e.g., anaerobic digestion of wastes with material recovery and combustion of biogas)

PART 2:

Reporting on Progress:

Ministers will receive reports on progress in achieving the CWS by jurisdictions in Spring 2004 and Spring 2008. Ministers will ensure that a single public report is prepared and posted on the CCME web site for public access. The report in 2004 will reflect interim progress on achieving the CWSs. Progress on both implementation of the numeric targets and the activities applied as part of the determined efforts provisions for smaller medical waste and municipal solid waste facilities will be documented. The 2008 report will evaluate whether targets have been met and the effectiveness of the determined efforts with respect to smaller facilities. More details on reporting are available in Annex 1.

Each jurisdiction will detail the means of ensuring achievement of the CWS in a manner consistent with the typical or desired programs for the affected facility/sector, so as not to impose an unnecessary level of reporting duplication.

With a view to continuous improvement towards the goal of virtual elimination, an evaluation of the Dioxin and Furan Canada-wide Standards will be presented to Ministers in Spring 2006. The evaluation will consider new scientific, technical and economic information and provide an assessment of the need to develop the next set of CWS targets and timelines to continue progress toward virtual elimination.

Administration:

Jurisdictions will review and renew Part 2 and Annex 1 five years from coming into effect.

Any party may withdraw from these Canada-Wide Standards upon three month's notice.

These Canada-Wide Standards comes into effect for each jurisdiction on the date of signature by the jurisdiction.

Ministers of Environment

jurisdiction	signature	date
Alberta	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
British Columbia	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Canada	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Manitoba	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
New Brunswick	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Newfoundland	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Northwest Territories	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Nova Scotia	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Nunavut	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Ontario	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Prince Edward Island	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Quebec	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Saskatchewan	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date
Yukon	__________________	_________
	The Honourable _________	Date

ANNEX 1

DIOXINS AND FURANS CWS REPORTING FRAMEWORK

Introduction

The framework addresses:

(1) frequency, timing and scope of reporting

(2) guidance as to the means of determining compliance/ achievement of the CWS

(3) common measurement parameters for reporting purposes

(4) data management and public reporting

Frequency, timing and scope of reporting

The reporting schedule will be tied into assessing the performance of the governments in meeting the benchmarks and timelines relevant to the standards. A report in 2004 will provide a means for tracking interim progress and report on additional technical studies (e.g. technology feasibility and pollution prevention options for the coastal pulp & paper sector). The 2008 report will indicate compliance with the standards for the coastal pulp and paper boiler and incineration sectors.

Jurisdictions will submit sectoral data for inclusion in the progress reports in a timely manner. To report on achievement of the CWS, a data report along with an assessment of progress will be compiled into a single report for Ministers and a public version will be posted on the CCME web site for public access.

Reports will be limited to information on those facilities which are subject to achievement and/or compliance with the Canada-wide Standards as endorsed by the Ministers of the Environment (insert date) and as implemented variously by the responsible jurisdictions or industries. This information is intended to show compliance rates and performance characteristics in a manner which documents sectoral performance as well as jurisdictional performance. It is not intended to provide a facility-by-facility record of performance.

Means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS

The Canada-wide Standards for dioxins and furans lend themselves to achievement through voluntary action, or through compliance with regulated or legally enforceable limits. As such, it is necessary to provide some means to ensure that a level playing field exists so that the numeric value provided in the CWS is applied equally or similarly in each jurisdictions. One means to do this is to require identical compliance procedures, but this may require that some jurisdictions apply compliance procedures for dioxins and furans CWSs that are different than those used for locally determined or regulated parameters such as SO₂, PM, ammonia, etc. An example is where the dioxins and furans CWS is expressed as the average of 3 stack tests, whereas a jurisdiction may normally utilize the median value of 3 tests to determine compliance.

In an effort to streamline implementation, each jurisdiction will determine the exact means of ensuring compliance/achievement in a manner consistent with the typical or desired programs for the affected facility/sector. It is anticipated that minor variations in jurisdictional requirements will result in minimal variation across the country which is insignificant with respect to the overall reduction activities which range from 50-99% for various facilities.

Common measurement parameters for reporting purposes

Each facility report will include specific measures corrected so as to be compatible and consistent for the purposes of public reporting. Dioxin and furan emissions must be corrected for the O₂ content of gases, to ensure compliance with the standards.

Each jurisdiction will determine the sector within which each subject facility will be reported. For example, a jurisdiction may determine that a small mixed waste incinerator (for example, burning both medical and municipal waste) may be subject to either standard, based upon the preponderance of waste (>50% as one type) or based upon the provincial designation of facility type. Sectoral assignments will be updated to reflect the most recent characteristics of the facility under consideration prior to reporting.

While little confusion is likely to exist over the implementation of dioxins and furans CWSs for "greenfield" facilities, it is possible that significantly expanded or modified facilities can/should be considered as new for the purposes of achievement/compliance with the dioxins and furans CWS. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdictions to determine at which point a facility no longer qualifies as an "existing" facility and must conform to the standard for "new or expanded" facilities as a result of significant modifications/alterations to the facility operations or physical plant.

Jurisdictions must report measurements that are below the detection limit in a consistent manner. These measurements should be reported as the limit of detection.

Large facilities will generally be required to perform stack tests at an annual frequency in order to demonstrate compliance. However, jurisdictions may vary the stack testing requirements for these facilities in cases where performance has been consistently demonstrated to be below the Level of Quantification (LoQ) as defined by Environment Canada. Where five years' data has been accumulated with all results reported below the LoQ, the stack testing frequency may be revised to a biannual schedule so long as all subsequent test results remain below the LoQ. For the purpose of reporting emissions, the most recent stack test results available should be used. Jurisdictions have the responsibility of deciding whether to implement this variance for all, some or none of the source types subject to these standards.

Data management and public reporting

Reports on achieving the CWSs will include a data report and a report on achievement of the standards. Sectoral and jurisdictional specific data will be supplied in a spreadsheet format to facilitate reporting. A consolidated report will be made available to all jurisdictions and to the Ministers, along with the draft public report, prior to formal release of the public report. The public report will be released upon approval by the Council of Ministers.

Jurisdictions will provide a report in spreadsheet format so that the data report and report on achievement can be prepared along with the public report for review and approval. Reports will be prepared and distributed to all jurisdictions prior to review by Ministers. Along with the report on achievement, a draft public report will be provided for review and consideration prior to the Ministers' meeting at which public release is anticipated. That public report will be posted to the CCME web site upon approval by the Ministers. Jurisdictions are encouraged to provide reference to the CCME web site and/or pointers in their own web sites in order to ensure a single location for dioxins and furans CWSs reporting should errors/miscalculations have to be corrected at some time.

In addition to the consolidated public reporting on dioxins and furans CWSs, jurisdictions must provide a contact for facility-specific information in the advent that the public wishes to access compliance or achievement information. Such data will be supplied in a manner consistent with the normal data-reporting/compliance reporting procedures of the jurisdiction in question — the consolidated spreadsheet will not be made publicly available in that it may include proprietary (business) information.

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of Part 7, Division 3, of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Permit No. 4543-2-03253 is approved.

1. Permittee: Delta Charters Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia.

2. Type of Permit: To load or dispose of dredged material.

3. Term of Permit: Permit is valid from August 22, 2000, to August 21, 2001.

4. Loading Site(s): Delta Airport Hotel and Marina, Richmond, British Columbia, at approximately 49°11.50' N, 123°08.30' W.

5. Disposal Site(s): Point Grey Disposal Site: 49°15.40' N, 123°22.10' W, at a depth of not less than 210 m.

The following position-fixing procedures must be followed to ensure disposal at the designated disposal site:

(i) The vessel must call the Vancouver Vessel Traffic Management (VTM) Centre on departure from the loading site and inform VTM that it is heading for a disposal site;
(ii) Upon arrival at the disposal site, and prior to disposal, the vessel must again call VTM to confirm its position. Disposal can proceed if the vessel is on the disposal site. If the vessel is not within the disposal site boundaries, VTM will direct it to the site and advise that disposal can proceed; and
(iii) The vessel will inform VTM when disposal has been completed prior to leaving the disposal site.

6. Route to Disposal Site(s): Direct.

7. Method of Loading and Disposal: Loading by clamshell dredge and disposal by hopper scow, or offloaded by end dumping.

8. Rate of Disposal: As required by normal operations.

9. Total Quantity to Be Disposed of: Not to exceed 33 000 m³.

10. Material to Be Disposed of: Dredged material comprised of river silt, sand, gravel and woodwastes typical of the approved loading site, except logs and usable wood.

11. Requirements and Restrictions:

11.1. The Permittee must notify the permit issuing office before commencement of the project as to the dates on which the loading or dumping will occur.

11.2. The Permittee must ensure that all contractors involved in the loading or disposal activity for which the permit is issued are made aware of any restrictions or conditions identified in the permit and of the possible consequences of any violation of these conditions. A copy of the permit and the letter of transmittal must be carried on all towing vessels and loading platforms or equipment involved in disposal at sea activities. A copy of the written approval for the appropriate loading site must be displayed with each copy of the permit posted at the loading sites.

11.3. The fee prescribed by the Ocean Dumping Permit Fee Regulations (Site Monitoring) shall be paid by the Permittee in accordance with those Regulations.

11.4. Contact must be made with the Canadian Coast Guard regarding the issuance of a "Notice to Shipping." The Permittee should contact the District Manager, Canadian Coast Guard, Vessel Traffic Services, Kapilano 100 Building, Room 1205, 100 Park Royal S, West Vancouver, British Columbia V7T 1A2, (604) 666-8453 (Facsimile).

11.5. Any enforcement officer designated pursuant to subsection 217(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, shall be permitted to mount an electronic tracking device on any vessel that is engaged in the disposal at sea activities authorized by this permit. The Permittee shall take all reasonable measures to ensure there is no tampering with the tracking device and no interference with its operation. The tracking device shall be removed only by an enforcement officer or by a person with the written consent of an enforcement officer.

11.6. The Permittee must submit to the Regional Director, Environmental Protection, within 30 days of the expiry of the permit, a list of all work completed pursuant to the permit, the nature and quantity of material disposed of and the dates on which the activity occurred.

J. B. WILSON
Environmental Protection
Pacific and Yukon Region

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of Part 7, Division 3, of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Permit No. 4543-2-03255 is approved.

1. Permittee: Vancouver Pile Driving Ltd., North Vancouver, British Columbia.

2. Type of Permit: To load or dispose of dredged material.

3. Term of Permit: Permit is valid from August 22, 2000, to August 21, 2001.

4. Loading Site(s):

(a) Various approved sites in Vancouver Harbour, at approximately 49°18.70' N, 123°08.00' W;

(b) Various approved sites in Fraser River Estuary, at approximately 49°12.00' N, 123°08.00' W; and

5. Disposal Site(s):

(a) Point Grey Disposal Site: 49°15.40' N, 123°22.10' W, at a depth of not less than 210 m;

(b) Sand Heads Disposal Site: 49°06.00' N, 123°19.50' W, at a depth of not less than 70 m (no woodwastes allowed); and

The following position-fixing procedures must be followed to ensure disposal at the designated disposal site:

6. Route to Disposal Site(s): Direct.

7. Method of Loading and Disposal: Clamshell dredging, and disposal by bottom dump scow or end dumping.

8. Rate of Disposal: As required by normal operations.

9. Total Quantity to Be Disposed of: Not to exceed 10 000 m³.

10. Material to be Disposed of: Dredged material consisting of clay, silt, sand, rock and other approved materials typical of the approved loading site.

11. Requirements and Restrictions:

11.1. The Permittee must notify the permit issuing office in writing and receive written approval for each loading site prior to any loading or disposal. Additional requirements may be requested by the permit issuing office. The written notification must include the following information:

(i) the co-ordinates of the proposed loading site;
(ii) a site map showing the proposed loading site relative to known landmarks or streets;
(iii) a figure showing the legal water lots impacted by the proposed dredging or loading activities, giving the spatial delineations of the proposed dredge site within these water lots;
(iv) all analytical data available for the proposed loading site;
(v) the nature and quantity of the material to be loaded and disposed of;
(vi) the proposed dates on which the loading and disposal will take place; and
(vii) a site history for the proposed loading site.

11.3. The fee prescribed by the Ocean Dumping Permit Fee Regulations (Site Monitoring) shall be paid by the Permittee in accordance with those Regulations.

11.6. The Permittee must report to the Regional Director, Environmental Protection, Pacific and Yukon Region, within ten days of completion of loading at each loading site, the nature and quantity of material disposed of pursuant to the permit and the dates on which the activity occurred.

11.7. The Permittee must submit to the Regional Director, Environmental Protection, within 30 days of the expiry of the permit, a list of all work completed pursuant to the permit, the nature and quantity of material disposed of and the dates on which the activity occurred.

J. B. WILSON
Environmental Protection
Pacific and Yukon Region

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of Part 7, Division 3, of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Permit No. 4543-2-06073 is approved.

1. Permittee: Chianti Food Processors Inc., St. Anthony, Newfoundland.

2. Type of Permit: To load and dispose of fish waste and other organic matter resulting from industrial fish processing operations.

3. Term of Permit: Permit is valid from August 21, 2000, to August 20, 2001.

4. Loading Site(s): 51°21.71' N, 55°34.41' W, St. Anthony, Newfoundland.

5. Disposal Site(s): 51°21.89' N, 55°33.11' W, at an approximate depth of 80 m.

6. Route to Disposal Site(s): Most direct navigational route from the loading site to the disposal site.

7. Equipment: Vessels, barges or other floating equipment complying with all applicable rules regarding safety and navigation and capable of containing all material to be disposed of during the loading and transit to the disposal site.

8. Method of Disposal: The material to be disposed of shall be discharged from the equipment or vessel while steaming within 300 m of the approved disposal site. Disposal will take place in a manner which will promote the greatest degree of dispersion. All vessels will operate at maximum safe speed while discharging material.

9. Rate of Disposal: As required by normal operations.

10. Total Quantity to Be Disposed of: Not to exceed 2 500 tonnes.

11. Material to be Disposed of: Fish waste and other organic matter resulting from industrial fish processing operations.

12. Requirements and Restrictions:

12.1. It is required that the Permittee report, in writing, to Mr. Neil Codner, Environmental Protection, Department of the Environment, 6 Bruce Street, Mount Pearl, Newfoundland A1N 4T3, (709) 772-5097 (Facsimile), neil.codner@ec.gc.ca (Electronic mail), at least 48 hours prior to the start of the first disposal operation to be conducted under this permit.

12.2. A written report shall be submitted to Mr. Neil Codner, identified in paragraph 12.1., within 30 days of either the completion of the work or the expiry of the permit, whichever comes first. This report shall contain the following information: the quantity and type of material disposed of pursuant to the permit and the dates on which the loading and disposal activities occurred.

12.3. It is required that the Permittee admit any enforcement officer designated pursuant to subsection 217(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to any place, ship, aircraft, platform or anthropogenic structure directly related to the loading or disposal at sea referred to under this permit, at any reasonable time throughout the duration of this permit.

12.4. The loading and transit of material to be disposed of at the disposal site must be conducted in such a manner that no material enters the marine environment. Material spilled at any place other than the permitted disposal site must be retrieved. All wastes must be contained on shore while the barge is away from the loading site.

12.5. The material to be disposed of must be covered by netting or other material to prevent access by gulls.

12.6. This permit must be displayed in an area of the plant accessible to the public.

12.7. Vessels operating under the authority of this permit must carry and display a radar-reflecting device at all times mounted on the highest practical location.

12.8. The loading or disposal at sea conducted under this permit shall not be carried out by any person without written authorization from the Permittee.

12.9. Material loaded for the purpose of disposal at sea may not be held aboard any vessel for more than 96 hours without the written consent of an enforcement officer designated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

K. G. HAMILTON
Environmental Protection
Atlantic Region

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Publication after Assessment of a Substance — Formaldehyde — Specified on the Priority Substances List (Subsection 77(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999)

Whereas a summary of a draft report of the assessment of the substance formaldehyde specified on the Priority Substances List is annexed hereby,

Notice therefore is hereby given that the Ministers of the Environment and of Health propose to recommend to Her Excellency the Governor in Council that formaldehyde be added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Public comment period

As specified under subsection 77(5) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the measure the Ministers propose to take and the scientific considerations on the basis of which the measure is proposed. All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be sent to the Director, Commercial Chemicals Evaluation Branch, Department of the Environment, Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3, (819) 953-4936 (Facsimile), or by electronic mail to the PSL Webmaster, PSL.LSIP@ec.gc.ca.

In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice, may submit, with the information a request that it be treated as confidential.

Annex

Summary of the Draft Report of the Assessment of the Substance Formaldehyde Specified on the Priority Substances List

In Canada, formaldehyde is used primarily in the production of resins and fertilizers and for a variety of minor uses. The Canadian domestic demand for formaldehyde was 191 000 tonnes in 1996.

Formaldehyde enters the Canadian environment from natural sources (including forest fires) and from direct human sources, such as automotive and other fuel combustion and industrial on-site uses. Secondary formation also occurs, by the oxidation of natural and anthropogenic organic compounds present in air. Although there are no quantitative estimates, releases from natural and secondary sources in Canada are likely greater than direct human releases. However, the highest concentrations measured in the environment occur near anthropogenic sources; these are of prime concern for the exposure of humans and other biota. Motor vehicles, the largest direct human source of formaldehyde in the Canadian environment, released an estimated 11 284 tonnes into the air in 1997. The amount of formaldehyde released into the Canadian environment from industrial processes was 1 424 tonnes in 1997.

When formaldehyde is released to or formed in air, most of it will undergo various degradation processes in air, and a very small amount will move into water. When formaldehyde is released into water, it does not move into other media but is broken down in the water. Formaldehyde does not persist in the environment, but its continuous release and formation can result in chronic exposure of biota near sources of release and formation.

Extensive recent data are available for concentrations of formaldehyde in air at industrial, urban, suburban, rural and remote locations in Canada. Data for concentrations in water are limited to surface water from four rivers, effluents from industrial plants and groundwater from three industrial sites and six cemeteries. Environmental toxicity data are available for a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic organisms.

Based on the maximum concentrations measured in air, surface water, effluents and groundwater in Canada, and on the estimated no-effects values derived from experimental data for terrestrial and aquatic biota, formaldehyde is not likely to cause adverse effects on terrestrial or aquatic organisms.

Formaldehyde is not involved in the depletion of stratospheric ozone or in climate change. Because of its photoreactivity and its relatively high concentrations in Canadian cities, formaldehyde plays a role in the photochemical formation of ground-level ozone.

Critical health effects in mammals associated with exposure to formaldehyde occur primarily at the site of first contact (i.e., the respiratory tract following inhalation and the gastrointestinal tract following ingestion) and are related to concentration in the relevant medium, rather than to total intake. The focus of the human health assessment is airborne exposure, due primarily to the lack of representative data on concentrations in media other than air and limited data on effects following ingestion.

Sensory irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract by formaldehyde has been observed consistently in clinical studies and epidemiological surveys in occupational and residential environments. At concentrations higher than those generally associated with sensory irritation, formaldehyde may also contribute to the induction of generally small, reversible effects on lung function.

Following inhalation in laboratory animals, formaldehyde causes degenerative non-neoplastic effects and nasal tumours in rats. Both sustained cellular proliferation and interaction with genetic material likely contribute to induction of these tumours, and, under similar conditions, formaldehyde is considered to present a carcinogenic hazard to humans.

The majority of the population is exposed to airborne concentrations of formaldehyde less than those associated with sensory irritation. However, in some indoor locations, concentrations may approach those associated with eye and respiratory tract sensory irritation in humans. Based on comparison of risks of cancer estimated on the basis of a biologically motivated case-specific model with calculated exposure in air of the general population in Canada, priority for investigation of options to reduce exposure on the basis of carcinogenicity is considered to be low.

Based on the information available, it is concluded that formaldehyde is not entering the Canadian environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity. Formaldehyde is entering the Canadian environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends and a danger in Canada to human life or health. Therefore, it is proposed that formaldehyde not be considered "toxic" as defined in paragraph 64(a) but be considered "toxic" as defined in paragraphs 64(b) and 64(c) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999).

Formaldehyde contributes to the photochemical formation of ground-level ozone. It is recommended that key sources of formaldehyde be addressed, therefore, as part of management plans for volatile organic chemicals that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. While indications are that concentrations currently in air and water are not causing environmental harm to biota, continued and improved monitoring at sites likely to release formaldehyde is desirable, notably with regards to industrial uses for resins and for fertilizers as well as releases from pulp and paper mills.

It is also recommended that continued investigation of options to reduce exposure to formaldehyde in indoor air be considered under the authority of acts other than CEPA 1999 as part of an overall program to reduce exposure to other aldehydes (e.g., acrolein, acetaldehyde) in indoor air deemed to be "toxic" under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA 1999.

J. A. BUCCINI
Director
Commercial Chemicals Evaluation Branch

On behalf of the Minister of the Environment

[30-1-o]

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

RADIOCOMMUNICATION ACT

Notice No. DGTP-008-00 — Proposed Revisions to the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations

This notice invites comments on proposals for the revision of the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations as outlined in the consultation paper under the above title.

Background

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopts a Table of Frequency Allocations as part of the International Radio Regulations. This International Table allocates radio frequency spectrum to various combinations of radio services and is revised on a periodic basis along with other parts of the international regulations.

The Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations is derived from the International Table of Frequency Allocations adopted by the ITU. The Canadian Table selects those radio services required to meet Canadian needs and also specifies, by Canadian footnote, any additional provisions for use of those services in Canada. Industry Canada revises the Canadian Table on a periodic basis, normally following an ITU World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC). The WRC-97 Conference, which met in October and November 1997, adopted a number of changes to the frequency allocations in the International Table. The Conference dealt with a large number of issues, including the consolidation of the various mobile satellite services and the allocation of spectrum to the Earth Sciences services. The resulting changes to the International Table demand the consideration of several issues on a domestic basis. The referenced Consultation Paper presents these issues and makes proposals for revision to the Canadian Table. This document is available electronically on the Internet at the following address:

World Wide Web (WWW)
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/spectrum

or can be obtained in hard copy (for a fee), from: Tyrell Press Ltd., 2714 Fenton Road, Gloucester, Ontario K1T 3T7, 1-800-267-4862 (Canada toll-free telephone), 1-800-574-0137 (United States toll-free telephone), (613) 822-0740 (Worldwide telephone), (613) 822-1089 (Facsimile); and DLS, St-Joseph Print Group Inc., 45 Sacré-Cœur Boulevard, Hull, Quebec J8X 1C6, (819) 779-4335 (Telephone), (819) 779-2833 (Facsimile).

Invitation to Comment

Industry Canada invites interested parties to provide their views and comments on the Consultation Paper issued through this notice. To ensure that all comments are duly considered, submissions must be received no later than September 29, 2000. All comments will be posted on the Industry Canada spectrum Web site at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/spectrum. Shortly after the close of the comment period, all comments received will also be available in hard copy, for a fee, from the addresses listed above.

Interested parties are encouraged to submit their comments in electronic format (WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Adobe PDF or ASCII TXT) to facilitate posting on the Department's Web site. Documents submitted should be sent with a note specifying the software, version number and operating system used. All comments should make reference to "Comments — Canada Gazette notice DGTP-008-00" and be sent to DGTP-DSRS@ic.gc.ca. Written submissions must be addressed to the Director General, Telecommunications Policy Branch, Industry Canada, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8. They must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, notice publication date, the title and the notice reference number (DGTP-008-00).

July 14, 2000

MICHAEL HELM
Director General
Telecommunications Policy Branch

[30-1-o]

Footnote a

S.C. 1999, c. 33

Footnote 1

Environment includes soils, water, air and municipal waste landfills, the later in recognition that mercury is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, and may leach from conventional landfills or be emitted with landfill gas.

Footnote 2

Conventional landfilling results in emissions during lamp collection and dumping due to lamp breakage, and exposure of the broken lamps to air, rain and sunlight. Systems are available to collect used lamps that filter mercury vapour as the lamps are broken, so that the residue can be landfilled without direct atmospheric emissions, or sent for recycling. Lamp recycling is the preferred end-of-life and landfilling should only take place when the lamp residues are not considered hazardous and will remain contained.

Footnote 3

Quantities reported refer to the amount of mercury in the dental waste stream (i.e. the mercury content in the amalgam).

Footnote 4

Best Management Practises are defined as including the use of an ISO certified amalgam trap, or equivalent, and appropriate management of waste so mercury does not entire the environment. Appropriate management may include landfilling in a confined, engineered landfill with leachate collection systems, such as a hazardous waste landfill, recycling to either produce new amalgam or raw mercury, silver and copper for other uses, or stabilization/immobilization in a form that can be retired permanently.

Footnote 5

Environment includes soils, water, air and municipal waste landfills, the later in recognition that mercury is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, and may leach from landfills or be emitted with landfill gas.

Footnote 6

Stack concentrations of dioxins and furans will be corrected to 11% oxygen content for reporting purposes.

Footnote 7

Hazardous waste incinerators do not include facilities that use waste derived fuel and do include facilities that burn low level radioactive waste.

Footnote 8

Stack concentrations of dioxins and furans will be corrected to 11% oxygen content for reporting purposes.

Footnote 9

Larger facilities must achieve this stack concentration as confirmed by annual testing.

Footnote 10

Smaller facilities must make determined efforts to achieve this stack concentration. The effectiveness of the pollution prevention measures will be established by way of a one-time stack test conducted after implementation of the plan or by the provision of an inventory documenting an audit of a waste diversion program, which is deemed an acceptable substitute.

Footnote 11

Larger facilities must achieve this stack concentration as confirmed by annual testing.

Footnote 12

Footnote 13

Hazardous waste incinerators do not include facilities that use waste derived fuel and do include facilities that burn low level radioactive waste.

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).

Common menu bar links

Left hand menu

Canada Gazette

Consultation

Archives

Publishing Information

Resources

Stay in Touch

Proactive Disclosure

GOVERNMENT NOTICES

DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH