ARCHIVED — Vol. 145, No. 26 — December 21, 2011

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Registration

SOR/2011-294 December 8, 2011

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999

Regulations Amending the Environmental Emergency Regulations

P.C. 2011-1529 December 8, 2011

Whereas, pursuant to subsection 332(1) (see footnote a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote b), the Minister of the Environment published in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, on June 9, 2007, a copy of the proposed Regulations Amending the Environmental Emergency Regulations, substantially in the form set out in the annexed Regulations, and persons were given an opportunity to file comments with respect to the proposed Regulations or to file a notice of objection requesting that a board of review be established and stating the reasons for the objection;

And whereas, pursuant to subsection 200(1) of that Act, the National Advisory Committee has been given an opportunity to provide its advice under section 6 (see footnote c) of that Act;

Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, pursuant to subsection 200(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote d), hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Environmental Emergency Regulations.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. Section 2 of the Environmental Emergency Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:

2. For the purposes of the definition “substance” in section 193 of the Act, the list of substances consists of the substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 1 in their pure form or in a mixture that has a concentration equal to or greater than the applicable concentration set out in column 2 but does not include

  • (a) a substance set out in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 that is a component of a mixture that has a flash point equal to or greater than 23°C or a boiling point equal to or greater than 35°C;

  • (b) a substance set out in column 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 when the substance is a gas or a liquid that is a component of a mixture and the partial pressure of the substance is equal to or less than 10 mm of mercury;

  • (c) a substance set out in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 that is a component of natural gas in its gaseous form;

  • (d) a substance that is subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 or the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, unless the substance is being loaded or unloaded at a facility; and

  • (e) solid nickel oxide in particles that measure more than 10 μm (microns) in diameter.

2. (1) Paragraph 3(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (b) the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity equal to or exceeding the quantity set out in column 3 of Schedule 1 for that substance.

(2) Paragraph 3(2)(d) of the Regulations is repealed.

(3) Paragraphs 3(2)(f) to (h) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

  • (f) quantities of the substance that are found in slag, waste rock in tailings, solid residues, ores and ore concentrates;

  • (g) in the case of the substances set out in column 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 and bearing CAS registry number 7664-41-7, namely, anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution, the quantities of those substances that are stored by a farmer and used by them as an agricultural nutrient; and

  • (h) in the case of the substance set out in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 and bearing CAS registry number 74-98-6, namely, propane, the quantity that is in a storage container that has a maximum capacity of less than 10 t and is located at a distance of at least 360 m from the boundaries of the property on which it is located.

(4) Subsection 3(6) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5.1) A person who intends to close or decommission a facility or place where the substance is located for any purpose other than maintenance must send a notice to the Minister at least 30 days before the closure or decommissioning of the facility or place, or as soon as feasible in the case of extraordinary circumstances such as fire, major accident, vandalism, natural disaster or act of terrorism, and the notice must contain the information referred to in Schedule 6.

(6) At the same time as a person submits information required under subsection (1), (4), (5) or (5.1), the person must submit to the Minister, in the form set out in Schedule 3, a certification that the information contained in the notice is accurate and complete and that is signed by the person or a duly authorized representative.

3. (1) Subsection 4(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

  • (d) if the substance is set out in column 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 1, and

    1. (i) the maximum expected quantity of the substance that was reported under paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 2 is equal to or exceeds the quantity set out in column 3 of Schedule 1 for that substance, and

    2. (ii) the substance is in a storage container that has a maximum capacity equal to or greater than the quantity set out in column 3 of Schedule 1 for that substance.

(2) Paragraph 4(3)(g) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (g) a description of the measures to be taken by the person referred to in subsection (1) to notify members of the public who may be adversely affected by an environmental emergency and to inform them of those measures and of what to do in the event of an environmental emergency.

4. Subsection 5(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5. (2) At the same time as the person submits the notice under subsection (1), the person must submit to the Minister, in the form set out in Schedule 3, a certification that states that the information contained in the notice is accurate and complete and that is signed by the person or a duly authorized representative.

5. Subsection 6(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

6. (1) The person referred to in subsection 5(1) must update and test the environmental emergency plan at least once each calendar year to ensure that it continues to meet the requirements of subsections 4(2) and (3).

6. Section 7 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) If a person amends a plan in accordance with subsection (2), that person must submit to the Minister a report that describes the amended plan and that contains the information requested in Schedule 4 within six months after the day referred to in paragraph 4(4)(b).

7. Section 9 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

9. (1) When an environmental emergency occurs in respect of a substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 1, the person who is designated, for the purpose of paragraph 201(1)(a) of the Act, to be provided with a written report is the Regional Director of the Environmental Enforcement Division of the Enforcement Branch of the Department of the Environment in the region where the environmental emergency occurs.

(2) The report must include the following information:

  • (a) the name, civic address and telephone number of the person who owns or has the charge, management or control of the substance released;

  • (b) the date, time and location of the release;

  • (c) the name and CAS registry number of the substance released;

  • (d) the quantity of the substance released or, if the quantity cannot be determined, an estimate of it;

  • (e) the identification of the container from which the substance was released and a description of its condition;

  • (f) the location of the release and a description of potential negative effects on the environment or on human life or health;

  • (g) a description of the circumstances and of the cause of the release, if known, and of the measures taken to mitigate any negative effects on the environment or on human life or health;

  • (h) the identification of all persons and agencies that were notified as a result of the release; and

  • (i) all measures taken or planned to be taken to prevent similar releases.

8. Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the Schedule 1 set out in the Schedule 1 to these Regulations.

9. Schedule 2 to the Regulations is amended by replacing “(Subsections 3(1) and (4) and subparagraphs 4(1)(a)(i) and (c)(i))” after the heading “SCHEDULE 2” with “(Subsections 3(1), (4) and 4(1))”.

10. Paragraphs 1(a) and (b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

  • (a) a description of the place or the facility name (if applicable), civic address and location by latitude and longitude; and

  • (b) the names, position titles, e-mail addresses (if any), telephone numbers and fax numbers (if any) of the contact person and their alternate.

11. Paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (b) the names, position titles, e-mail addresses (if any), telephone numbers and fax numbers (if any) of the contact person and their alternate.

12. (1) Paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (d) the maximum expected quantity of the substance at any time during the calendar year;

(2) Section 3 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (e):

  • (f) the maximum expected quantity of the mixture (if applicable); and

  • (g) the concentration of the substance within the mixture (if applicable).

13. Schedule 4 to the Regulations is amended by replacing “(Subsection 4(4))” after the heading “SCHEDULE 4” with “(Subsections 4(4) and 7(3))”.

14. Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 4 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (a) a description of the place or the facility name (if applicable), civic address and location by latitude and longitude; and

15. Section 5 of Schedule 4 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5. The date on which the preparation of the environmental emergency plan or an amendment to the plan referred to in subsection 7(2) was completed.

16. Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (a) a description of the place or the facility name (if applicable), civic address and location by latitude and longitude; and

17. Schedule 6 to the Regulations is replaced by the Schedule 6 set out in Schedule 2 to these Regulations.

COMING INTO FORCE

18. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

SCHEDULE 1
(Section 8)

SCHEDULE 1
(Section 2, subsections 3(1), (2) and (5), 4(1) and 7(1))

LIST OF SUBSTANCES

PART 1

SUBSTANCES LIKELY TO EXPLODE

CAS Registry Number

Column 1


Name of Substance

Column 2

Concentration
(% by weight)

Column 3

Minimum Quantity (metric tonnes)

60-29-7

ethyl ether (diethyl ether)

1

4.50

71-43-2

benzene

1

10.00

74-82-8

methane

1

4.50

74-84-0

ethane

1

4.50

74-85-1

ethylene

1

4.50

74-86-2

acetylene

1

4.50

74-89-5

methylamine

1

4.50

74-98-6

propane

1

4.50

74-99-7

methylacetylene (propyne)

1

4.50

75-00-3

ethyl chloride

1

4.50

75-01-4

vinyl chloride

1

4.50

75-02-5

vinyl fluoride

1

4.50

75-04-7

ethylamine

1

4.50

75-07-0

acetaldehyde

1

4.50

75-08-1

ethyl mercaptan

1

4.50

75-18-3

dimethyl sulphide

1

150.00

75-19-4

cyclopropane

1

4.50

75-28-5

isobutane

1

4.50

75-29-6

2-chloropropane (isopropyl chloride)

1

4.50

75-31-0

isopropylamine

1

4.50

75-35-4

vinylidene chloride

1

4.50

75-37-6

difluoroethane (1,1-difluoroethane)

1

4.50

75-38-7

1,1-difluoroethylene (vinylidene fluoride)

1

4.50

75-50-3

trimethylamine

1

4.50

75-64-9

tert-butylamine (2-amino-2-methylpropane)

1

150.00

75-76-3

tetramethylsilane

1

4.50

78-78-4

isopentane (2-methylbutane)

1

4.50

78-79-5

isoprene

1

4.50

79-38-9

trifluorochloroethylene (chlorotrifluoroethylene)

1

4.50

100-41-4

ethylbenzene

1

7000.00

100-42-5

styrene

10

4.50

106-97-8

butane

1

4.50

106-98-9

1-butene (alpha-butylene)

1

4.50

106-99-0

1,3-butadiene

1

4.50

107-00-6

ethylacetylene

1

4.50

107-01-7

2-butene

1

4.50

107-25-5

vinyl methyl ether

1

4.50

107-31-3

methyl formate

1

4.50

108-88-3

toluene

1

2500.00

109-66-0

n-pentane (pentane)

1

4.50

109-67-1

1-pentene

1

4.50

109-92-2

vinyl ethyl ether (ethyl vinyl ether)

1

4.50

109-95-5

ethyl nitrite

1

4.50

110-82-7

cyclohexane

1

550.00

115-07-1

propylene

1

4.50

115-10-6

dimethyl ether (methyl ether)

1

4.50

115-11-7

isobutylene (2-methylpropene)

1

4.50

116-14-3

tetrafluoroethylene

1

4.50

124-40-3

dimethylamine

1

4.50

460-19-5

cyanogen

1

4.50

463-49-0

propadiene

1

4.50

463-58-1

carbonyl sulphide (carbon oxysulfide)

1

4.50

463-82-1

2,2-dimethylpropane

1

4.50

504-60-9

1,3-pentadiene

1

4.50

557-98-2

2-chloropropene (2-chloropropylene)

1

4.50

563-45-1

3-methyl-1-butene

1

4.50

563-46-2

2-methyl-1-butene

1

4.50

590-18-1

cis-2-butene (2-butene-cis)

1

4.50

590-21-6

1-chloropropene (1-chloropropylene)

1

4.50

598-73-2

bromotrifluoroethylene

1

4.50

624-64-6

trans-2-butene (2-butene-trans)

1

4.50

627-20-3

cis-2-pentene (beta-cis-amylene)

1

4.50

646-04-8

trans-2-pentene (trans-beta-amylene)

1

4.50

689-97-4

1-buten-3-yne (vinyl acetylene)

1

4.50

1330-20-7

xylenes

1

8000.00

1333-74-0

hydrogen

1

4.50

4109-96-0

dichlorosilane

1

4.50

6484-52-2

ammonium nitrate (in solid form)

60

20.00

6484-52-2

ammonium nitrate (in liquid form)

81

20.00

7722-84-1

hydrogen peroxide

52

3.40

7775-09-9

sodium chlorate

10

10.00

7790-98-9

ammonium perchlorate

1

3.40

7791-21-1

chlorine monoxide (dichlorine oxide)

1

4.50

7803-62-5

silane

1

4.50

8006-14-2

liquefied natural gas

1

4.50

8006-61-9

gasoline (unleaded)

1

150.00

8030-30-6

naphtha

1

50.00

10025-78-2

trichlorosilane

1

4.50

25167-67-3

butylene (butene)

1

4.50

86290-81-5

gasoline (motor fuel)

1

150.00

PART 2

SUBSTANCES HAZARDOUS WHEN INHALED

CAS Registry Number

Column 1


Name of Substance

Column 2

Concentration
(% by weight)

Column 3

Minimum Quantity (metric tonnes)

50-00-0

formaldehyde, solution

10

6.80

57-14-7

1,1-dimethylhydrazine

10

6.80

60-34-4

methylhydrazine (monomethyl hydrazine)

10

6.80

64-19-7

acetic acid

95

6.80

67-66-3

chloroform (trichloromethane)

10

9.10

74-83-9

methyl bromide

10

2.27

74-87-3

methyl chloride

10

4.50

74-88-4

methyl iodide

10

4.50

74-90-8

hydrogen cyanide (hydrocyanic acid)

10

1.13

74-93-1

methyl mercaptan

10

4.50

75-09-2

dichloromethane (methylene chloride)

1

9.10

75-15-0

carbon disulphide

10

9.10

75-21-8

ethylene oxide

10

4.50

75-44-5

phosgene

1

0.22

75-55-8

propyleneimine

10

4.50

75-56-9

propylene oxide

10

4.50

75-74-1

tetramethyl lead

10

4.50

75-77-4

trimethylchlorosilane (chlorotrimethylsilane)

10

4.50

75-78-5

dimethyldichlorosilane (dichlorodimethylsilane)

10

2.27

75-79-6

methyltrichlorosilane

10

2.27

76-06-2

chloropicrin (trichloronitromethane)

10

2.27

78-00-2

tetraethyl lead

10

2.27

78-82-0

isobutyronitrile

10

9.10

79-21-0

peroxyacetic acid (peracetic acid)

10

4.50

79-22-1

methyl chloroformate

10

2.27

91-08-7

toluene-2,6-diisocyanate

10

4.50

106-89-8

epichlorohydrin

10

9.10

107-02-8

acrolein

10

2.27

107-05-1

allyl chloride

10

9.10

107-06-2

ethylene dichloride (1,2-dichloroethane)

10

6.80

107-07-3

ethylene chlorohydrin (2-chloroethanol)

10

4.50

107-11-9

allylamine

10

4.50

107-12-0

propionitrile

10

4.50

107-13-1

acrylonitrile

10

9.10

107-15-3

ethylenediamine

10

9.10

107-18-6

allyl alcohol

10

6.80

107-30-2

methyl chloromethyl ether (chloromethyl methyl ether)

10

2.27

108-05-4

vinyl acetate

10

6.80

108-23-6

isopropyl chloroformate

10

6.80

108-91-8

cyclohexylamine

10

6.80

108-95-2

phenol

10

9.10

109-61-5

n-propyl chloroformate (propyl chloroformate)

10

6.80

110-00-9

furan

10

2.27

110-89-4

piperidine

10

6.80

123-73-9

trans-crotonaldehyde

10

9.10

126-98-7

methylacrylonitrile

10

4.50

151-56-4

ethyleneimine

10

4.50

302-01-2

hydrazine

10

6.80

353-42-4

boron trifluoride dimethyl etherate

10

6.80

463-51-4

ketene

1

0.22

506-68-3

cyanogen bromide

10

4.50

506-77-4

cyanogen chloride

10

4.50

509-14-8

tetranitromethane

10

4.50

542-88-1

dichlorodimethyl ether [bis(chloromethyl) ether]

1

0.45

556-64-9

methyl thiocyanate

10

9.10

584-84-9

toluene-2,4-diisocyanate

10

4.50

594-42-3

perchloromethyl mercaptan

10

4.50

624-83-9

methyl isocyanate

10

4.50

630-08-0

carbon monoxide

10

6.80

814-68-6

acryloyl chloride (acrylyl chloride)

10

2.27

2551-62-4

sulphur hexafluoride (sulfur hexafluoride)

10

9.10

4170-30-3

crotonaldehyde

10

9.10

7439-97-6

mercury

NA

1.00

7446-09-5

sulphur dioxide

10

2.27

7446-11-9

sulphur trioxide

10

4.50

7550-45-0

titanium tetrachloride

10

1.13

7616-94-6

perchloryl fluoride (trioxychlorofluoride)

10

6.80

7637-07-2

boron trifluoride

10

2.27

7647-01-0

hydrochloric acid

30

6.80

7647-01-0

hydrogen chloride, anhydrous

10

2.27

7664-39-3

hydrofluoric acid

50

0.45

7664-39-3

hydrogen fluoride, anhydrous

1

0.45

7664-41-7

ammonia, anhydrous

10

4.50

7664-41-7

ammonia solution

20

9.10

7697-37-2

nitric acid

80

6.80

7719-09-7

thionyl chloride

10

6.80

7719-12-2

phosphorus trichloride

10

6.80

7723-14-0

phosphorus, white

NA

1.00

7726-95-6

bromine

10

4.50

7782-41-4

fluorine

1

0.45

7782-50-5

chlorine

10

1.13

7783-06-4

hydrogen sulphide

10

4.50

7783-07-5

hydrogen selenide

1

0.22

7783-60-0

sulphur tetrafluoride

10

1.13

7784-34-1

arsenic trichloride (arsenous trichloride)

10

6.80

7784-42-1

arsine

1

0.45

7790-94-5

chlorosulphonic acid

10

2.27

7803-51-2

phosphine

10

2.27

7803-52-3

stibine

10

2.27

8014-95-7

sulphuric acid, fuming (oleum)

NA

4.50

10025-87-3

phosphorus oxychloride

10

2.27

10035-10-6

hydrogen bromide (hydrobromic acid)

10

1.13

10049-04-4

chlorine dioxide

1

0.45

10102-43-9

nitric oxide (nitrogen monoxide)

10

4.50

10102-44-0

nitrogen dioxide

10

1.13

10294-34-5

boron trichloride

10

2.27

13463-39-3

nickel carbonyl

1

0.45

13463-40-6

iron pentacarbonyl

10

1.13

19287-45-7

diborane

10

1.13

20816-12-0

osmium tetroxide

1

0.22

26471-62-5

toluene diisocyanate

10

4.50

PART 3

OTHER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

CAS Registry Number

Column 1


Name of Substance

Column 2

Concentration
(% by weight)

Column 3

Minimum Quantity (metric tonnes)

56-23-5

tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride)

1

0.22

79-01-6

trichloroethylene (TCE)

1

1.13

91-20-3

naphthalene (in liquid form)

10

4.5

91-94-1

3,3′-dichlorobenzidine

1

1.13

104-40-5

p-nonylphenol

10

1.13

127-18-4

tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)

1

1.13

373-02-4

nickel acetate

10

0.22

1303-28-2

arsenic pentoxide

10

0.22

1306-19-0

cadmium oxide

10

0.22

1306-23-6

cadmium sulphide

10

0.22

1313-99-1

nickel oxide

10

0.22

1327-53-3

arsenic trioxide (arsenic(III) oxide)

10

0.22

1333-82-0

chromium trioxide

10

0.22

3333-67-3

nickel carbonate

10

0.22

7440-38-2

arsenic

10

0.22

7718-54-9

nickel chloride

10

0.22

7738-94-5

chromic acid

10

0.22

7775-11-3

sodium chromate

10

0.22

7778-39-4

arsenic acid

10

0.22

7778-43-0

sodium arsenate, dibasic

10

0.22

7784-46-5

sodium arsenite

10

0.22

7786-81-4

nickel(II) sulphate (nickel(II) sulfate)

10

0.22

7789-00-6

potassium chromate

10

0.22

10048-95-0

sodium arsenate, dibasic, heptahydrate

10

0.22

10101-97-0

nickel(II) sulphate, hexahydrate (nickel(II) sulfate, hexahydrate)

10

0.22

10108-64-2

cadmium chloride

10

0.22

10124-36-4

cadmium sulphate

10

0.22

10588-01-9

sodium dichromate

10

0.22

13138-45-9

nickel nitrate (nitrate(II) nitrate)

10

0.22

13478-00-7

nickel(II) nitrate, hexahydrate

10

0.22

15699-18-0

nickel ammonium sulphate (nickel ammonium sulfate)

10

0.22

25154-52-3

nonylphenol (mixed isomer)

10

1.13

81741-28-8

tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride (TTPC)

10

0.22

84852-15-3

4-tert-nonylphenol

10

1.13

Note: The percentage concentration in column 2 is the percentage concentration based on the proportion of the weight of the substance to the weight of the mixture.

SCHEDULE 2
(Section 17)

SCHEDULE 6
(Subsection 3(5.1))

INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED IN THE NOTICE OF CLOSURE OR DECOMMISSIONING

1. Place where one or more substances are located:

  • (a) a description of the place or the facility name (if applicable), civic address and location by latitude and longitude;

  • (b) the name of each substance;

  • (c) the quantity of each substance remaining at the place or facility; and

  • (d) the names, position titles, e-mail address (if any), telephone numbers and fax numbers (if any) of the contact person and their alternate.

2. The closing or decommissioning date for the facility or place.

3. A description of the measures taken to prevent and to respond to an environmental emergency when the facility or place closes or is decommissioned.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issue: The Environmental Emergency Regulations came into force on November 18, 2003. That same year, based on consultations with non-profit stakeholders, Environment Canada committed to evaluate 49 additional substances for their potential to create environmental emergencies. In addition, stakeholders that are involved with acetic acid, styrene and ammonium nitrate requested that these three additional substances also be assessed. As an example of the hazards associated with styrene, an explosion that occurred in the province of Quebec in 1966 resulted in 11 deaths, 7 injuries and significant property loss. Of the 52 substances evaluated, 33 substances and classes of substances (a total of 41 substances) were found to have the potential to create environmental emergencies due to their significant risk to the environment and human life in the case of accidents, vandalism or terrorist acts. Based on this conclusion, these substances are being added to Schedule 1 of the Environmental Emergency Regulations (the Regulations).

The fundamental objective of the Regulations Amending the Environmental Emergency Regulations (the Amendments) is to require that effective environmental emergency plans are in place to protect the environment and the health of Canadians by preventing, preparing for, responding to and recovering from an environmental emergency. The Amendments are supportive of, and are linked to, the federal government’s overall policies for public safety and emergency preparedness.

Description: The Amendments enhance the existing protection provided by the Regulations for specified substances that are flammable or toxic. In addition, the Amendments clarify some existing provisions and provide exceptions from the requirements of the Regulations. These modifications include

  • Addition of 33 substances and classes of substances representing different forms of the core 33 substances (a total of 41 individual substances) to Schedule 1 of the Regulations;
  • Exceptions to the calculation of quantities for certain solids, anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution, and propane;
  • Provisions for closed or decommissioned facilities;
  • Exclusions from the List of Substances in Schedule 1 of the Regulations;
  • Changes in the requirements to notify members of the public in the event of an environmental emergency;
  • Modifications to Schedule 1 of the Regulations to include substances that are aquatically toxic, carcinogenic, persistent or bioaccumulative;
  • Revision to the reporting requirements of the Regulations; and
  • Miscellaneous changes.

Cost-benefit statement: The Amendments are expected to bring significant benefits to society at large in terms of improved safety and security, reduced environmental damage, increased protection for property and a reduction in human health and safety impacts in the event of an uncontrolled, unplanned or accidental release of a regulated substance into the environment, or the reasonable likelihood thereof. The total expected cost to regulatees, for activities that include developing or updating environmental emergency plans and notifying and reporting to the Minister, is expected to be $13.96 million over a 25-year period in present-value terms. The total expected cost to the Government for activities such as compliance promotion and administration is expected to be $0.37 million over a 25-year period in present-value terms. In contrast, the expected benefit from damage reductions will range from $55.31 million to $576.92 million in present-value terms over the same period. The net impact of the Amendment is positive and ranges from $40.98 million to $562.59 million in present-value terms. The benefit coupled with other qualitative benefits will result in an overall net benefit to society at large.

Business and consumer impacts: The Amendments make any person who owns or has the charge, management or control of any of the new listed substances, in quantities equal to or exceeding the prescribed thresholds or the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity equal to or exceeding the prescribed quantity threshold, subject to the requirements of the Regulations. These Regulations require that regulatees prepare, implement and test environmental emergency plans if both of these threshold circumstances are met. They also require the submission of notices and reports to the Minister. Given the estimated facility costs of about $13,000 on average for the first year and about $4,000 per year when tests are conducted the following years to meet these requirements, the Amendments are expected to have a moderate to small impact on businesses subject to the Amendments. Furthermore, the Amendments are not expected to result in an increase of production costs at those facilities or places that would need to be recovered in the form of higher product prices. Therefore, no impacts are expected on consumers other than the benefits discussed above.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: The Amendments are developed to further provide an appropriate level of prevention and protection to surrounding communities in the event of an environmental emergency. The Amendments further align provisions of the Regulations with similar provisions in the United States (U.S.) regarding the use of ammonia as an agricultural nutrient by farmers. Environment Canada is also collaborating internationally on the scientific and technical aspects through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Working Group on Chemical Accidents. At the national level, the Amendments were developed in consultation with the provinces and territories and interested stakeholders. Environment Canada worked cooperatively with Quebec and Ontario to provide federal/provincial harmonization in the implementation of the Regulations, including these Amendments, with the intent of avoiding overlap and duplication.

Performance measurement and evaluation plan: A performance measurement and evaluation plan (PMEP) has been developed for these Amendments and is available upon request. The PMEP includes a performance measurement strategy and a logic model for these Amendments.

As identified in the PMEP, upon implementation of the Amendments, 11 indicators will be monitored to measure the performance of the Amendments. The performance information collected will be summarized and reported annually through various mechanisms which could include the annual report for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999), Departmental performance reports, internet publications and mail-outs. The evaluation will include an assessment of the Regulations and will address issues related to relevance and performance.

Issue

The Regulations made under CEPA 1999, requiring the preparation of environmental emergency plans, were published in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅱ, in 2003. The Regulations enhance the protection of the environment and human life and health by promoting the prevention of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from environmental emergencies at facilities or places located in Canada. The environmental emergency plan is a risk management tool that considers likely scenarios and addresses prevention, preparedness, response and recovery considerations, including measures to be used to notify members of the public who could be adversely affected by an environmental emergency. The increased emphasis on prevention activities, combined with information on causes of accidents, will enable regulatees to reduce both the frequency and consequences of such incidents.

At the time of publication of the Regulations and based on consultations with non-profit stakeholders, Environment Canada made a commitment to evaluate 49 additional substances already on Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999, for their environmental emergency hazards and their potential addition to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Some of these substances are in fact “classes of substances” which include several sub-compounds. The evaluation found that 30 of the 49 substances have the potential to create environmental emergencies due to their flammability and toxicity characteristics. In addition, three other substances of concern (acetic acid, ammonium nitrate and styrene) were identified to be subject to the same evaluation by stakeholders involved with these substances and were also found to have the potential to create environmental emergencies due to their flammability and toxicity characteristics. Based on this conclusion, 33 substances and classes of substances representing different forms of the core 33 substances (a total of 41 individual substances) are being added to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. As a result of this addition, environmental emergency plans have to be developed by persons who own or have the charge, management or control of these substances if they are stored or used in a quantity that equals or exceeds the prescribed threshold quantity and if the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity that equals or exceeds the prescribed threshold quantity.

Objectives

The objectives of the Amendments are to protect the environment and human lives and health and further promote the prevention of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from environmental emergencies at facilities or places located in Canada by adding substances to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. The Amendments will also reduce the burden on certain regulatees and clarify the regulatory text. The Amendments require any person to have effective environmental emergency plans in place to prevent incidents and respond quickly and effectively to protect the environment and the health of Canadians in the event of an environmental emergency if they store or use any of the 41 substances in quantities equal to or greater than the prescribed thresholds and if the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity that equals or exceeds the prescribed threshold quantity. The Amendments are supportive of and are linked to the federal government’s overall policies for public safety and emergency preparedness.

Description

The Amendments

The Amendments enhance the existing protection provided by the Regulations through the addition of toxic substances not previously addressed, including three other substances identified by stakeholders, clarify the regulatory text to facilitate implementation and provide exceptions from the requirements of the Regulations for the mining, farming and propane sectors. These amendments are described below:

Addition of 33 substances and classes of substances (a total of 41 substances)to Schedule 1 of the Regulations

Thirty-four substances and classes of substances representing different forms of the core 34 substances (a total of 42 substances) were initially recommended for addition to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Among these substances, the substance bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) was proposed for addition to Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Since pre-publication of the Amendments, new information has emerged indicating that the persistence of DEHP decreases in the air to less than five years and does not trigger any of the criteria for adding a substance to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Thus, the substance no longer meets the requirements for addition to this schedule. Consequently, these amendments add 33 substances and classes of substances (a total of 41 substances) and their respective quantity thresholds instead of 34 substances and classes of substances (a total of 42 substances) to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. This includes the three substances identified by the stakeholders.

Schedule 1 of the Regulations contained a list of substances presented in two parts; Part 1 listed flammable substances, and Part 2 listed other hazardous substances. To improve clarity, the Amendments modify Schedule 1 to indicate that Part 1 lists substances likely to explode and Part 2 lists substances hazardous when inhaled. In addition, the Amendments create a new part, Part 3, which lists other hazardous substances because of their carcinogenicity, aquatic toxicity, persistence or bioaccumulative characteristics.

Of the 41 additional substances being added to Schedule 1 of the Regulations, styrene and ammonium nitrate, both in liquid and solid form, are added to Part 1; acetic acid, dichloromethane and sulphur hexafluoride are added to Part 2; and the remaining 35 substances are added to Part 3.

Exceptions from the calculation of quantity for certain solids, anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution, and propane

The Amendments include a provision that excludes quantities of a regulated substance that are found in slag, waste rock in tailings, solid residues, ores and ore concentrates since they do not have the potential to release the regulated substances in a manner that would create an environmental emergency. Consequently, quantities of substances that are found in these solids are excluded from the calculation of the quantity of the substance for the purposes of subsection 3(1) of the Regulations.

Given the voluntary approaches in place to manage the risk in Canada, the benefits in being consistent with the exemptions (see footnote 2) provided to farmers in the U.S. as well as the reduction of the administrative burden on farmers, the Amendments exclude from the calculation of quantities of anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution for the purposes of subsection 3(1) of the Regulations, quantities of those substances that are stored by a farmer for the purpose of being used by them as an agricultural nutrient.

The Amendments exclude quantities of propane in storage containers from the calculation of the total quantity of propane at the facility or place, for the purposes of subsection 3(1) of the Regulations, where the following two circumstances are met: the quantity of propane is in a storage container that has a maximum cap-acity of less than 10 tonnes (t); and the storage containers are kept at a distance of at least 360 metres (m) from the boundaries of the property on which they are located. Nonetheless, Environment Canada encourages voluntary evaluation and management of risks associated with such quantities of propane at these locations through application of the Implementation Guidelines for Part 8 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 — Environmental Emergency Plans (the “Guidelines”) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Environmental Farm Plans.

To further clarify the exclusions, paragraph 3(1)(b) has been amended to include the requirement that the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity equal to or exceeding the prescribed threshold quantity for that substance.

Provision for closed or decommissioned facilities

Section 3 of the Regulations is amended by adding a new provision addressing closed or decommissioned facilities. The Amendments include a provision that requires the submission of a notice to the Minister by a person, as defined in subsection 3(1) of the Regulations, at least 30 days before the closure or decommissioning of the facility or place. In cases of extraordinary circumstances (fire, major incident, vandalism, natural disaster or terrorism), notification is to be made as soon as feasible prior to closure or decommissioning.

In addition, Schedule 6 is added to the Regulations to specify, for closed or decommissioned facilities, the information to be submitted, and subsection 3(6) is amended to require that the information in Schedule 6 must be accompanied, in the form set out in Schedule 3, by certification that the information in the notice is accurate and complete. This information will enable Environment Canada to assess whether effective emergency planning is in place to prevent and respond to an environmental emergency when the facility or place is closed or decommissioned.

Exclusions from the List of Substances

For the purposes of the definition “substance” in section 193 of CEPA 1999, the list of substances consists of substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 1, having a concentration equal to or greater than the applicable concentration set out in column 2, but does not include

  • a substance listed in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations that is a component of a mixture that has either a flash point equal to or greater than 23°C or a boiling point equal to or greater than 35°C. Substances with these physical properties do not have an environmental emergency hazard and are not considered as substances for the purposes of section 193 of CEPA 1999;
  • a substance in column 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 when the substance is a gas or a liquid that is a component of a mixture and the partial pressure of the substance is equal to or less than 10 millimetres of mercury. Below that pressure, the concentration of the substance in the air would not present an environmental emergency hazard;
  • a substance identified in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations that is a component of natural gas in its gaseous form; or
  • a substance that is subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (i.e. a substance being transported), unless the substance is being loaded or unloaded at a facility.

To clarify that the exclusions apply to all the provisions of the Regulations, the Amendments move these exclusions from section 3 to section 2.

Furthermore, following discussion between Environment Canada and two shipping associations, the Amendments provide an exclusion for substances that are subject to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, unless the substances are being loaded or unloaded at a facility, in which case, they are substances for the purposes of section 193 of CEPA 1999 and the Regulations.

The Amendments also introduce an exclusion, in section 2, for solid nickel oxide particles above 10 microns in diameter, because no inhalation is observed at this diameter. This modification addresses concerns raised by industry stakeholders.

Changes in the requirements to notify members of the public in the event of an environmental emergency

Changes to paragraph 4(3)(g) require persons who must prepare an environmental emergency plan to include in the plan a description of the measures that they will take to inform members of the public who may be adversely affected by an environmental emergency of an environmental emergency, to notify members of the public who may be adversely affected by an environmental emergency of what the measures are and to inform them of what they have to do in an environmental emergency to protect themselves. This change is aimed at increasing public safety in the event of an environmental emergency.

Revised reporting requirements

Following internal discussion at Environment Canada after pre-publication of the Amendments, section 9 of the Regulations is amended, instead of being repealed, to prescribe the content of written reports that must be provided in an environmental emergency and to designate the person to whom the written report must be submitted. This modification aligns the Regulations with other regulations under CEPA 1999 that include provisions with respect to content of written reports.

Miscellaneous changes

In addition to the modifications above, other changes are made to improve the clarity of certain provisions of the Regulations.

  • The word “report” is removed from subsection 5(2) of the English version of the Regulations and replaced with the word “notice.”
  • Column 2 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the French version of the Regulations is amended by replacing the percentages “10 %” with the abbreviations “S/O” (sans objet) for CAS registry numbers 7439-97-6 [mercury], 7723-14-0 [phosphorus, white] and 8014-95-7 [sulphuric acid, fuming (oelum)], harmonizing the English and French versions of the concentrations found in column 2 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations for these substances.
  • Clarify that the Regulations apply also to unleaded gasoline by adding the substance (with CAS No. 8006-61-9) on the list of regulated substances.
  • The Amendments remove the United Nations (UN) numbers from Schedule 1. However, the requirement that UN numbers be provided, if applicable, in Schedule 2 of the Regulations remains as does the reference to them in the Guidelines.

Actions in other jurisdictions

The Regulations currently contain all 140 substances regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) with respect to environmental emergencies. However, the U.S. EPA does not currently regulate the 41 substances being added by the Amendments.

The European Union (EU) has a different approach for regulating substances as they regulate by classes of substances and only specify some individual substances, making it difficult to determine whether they are taking action on the same substances. However, all of the flammable substances being added to Schedule 1 of the Regulations are regulated by the EU under the flammable class of substances.

Background and context

On September 10, 2003, the Regulations, made under subsection 200(1) of CEPA 1999, were published in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅱ, and came into force on November 18, 2003. The Regulations list 174 substances that were deemed to be hazardous and include specific requirements that apply to any person who owns or has the charge, management or control of a listed substance. The person must submit a notice to the Minister containing the information requested in Schedule 2, within 90 days after the later of the day on which the Regulations come into force and the day on which the substance is in a quantity that is equal to or exceeds the prescribed threshold quantity or the substance is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity equal to or exceeding the prescribed quantity threshold. When both circumstances are met, a person must prepare an environmental emergency plan for their facility and submit a report to the Minister. It is recognized that having an environmental emergency plan contributes to lessening the impact on the environment and on human life and health in the event of an environmental emergency, but this will not completely eliminate the risk of such an emergency.

Since the Regulations came into force in 2003, approximately 4 200 facilities have notified the Minister that they are subject to the Regulations. Of those facilities, approximately 2 400 were required to prepare, implement and test environmental emergency plans. There are obligations for companies or individuals who own or have the charge, management or control of a regulated substance in relation to the quantity of a regulated substance kept on site and the maximum capacity of the largest container in which the regulated substance is stored. If a company only meets one of these two circumstances of on-site quantity or container capacity, they are only required to notify the Minister of the Environment that they store or use the regulated substance; however, if a company meets both circumstances, they are required to notify the Minister and prepare, implement, annually test and update their environmental emergency plan. Additionally, the Regulations required that, in the event of an environmental emergency, regulatees notify the designated persons identified in section 9.

Sectors profile and uses

A number of sectors producing, storing or using any of the 33 substances and classes of substances (a total of 41 substances) added to Schedule 1 of the Regulations, including but not limited to the metal mining and smelting and the petrochemical sectors, are expected to be subject to the Amendments.

Metal mining and smelting

The metal mining and smelting sector will be impacted by the amendments due to the addition of ammonium nitrate (AN) and various heavy metal compounds. In 1996, the Canadian production capacity for ammonium nitrate was 1 230 kilotonnes (kt) with a total Canadian supply of 1 108 kt. Implications related to the addition of AN are twofold: though the manufacture of agricultural grade AN, in the solid form, in Canada ceased at the beginning of summer 2006, the substance is still imported and persons who own or have the charge, management or control of AN will be subject to the Regulations if the quantity of the substance meets or exceeds the prescribed threshold quantity for that substance or the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity equal to or exceeding the prescribed threshold quantity. Industrial uses of AN, including the explosive grade used in the mining sector, representing approximately one-quarter of the total AN market, is already subject to extensive controls and planning requirements for safety reasons under the 2008 Restricted Components Regulations under the Explosives Act administered by Natural Resources Canada. Therefore, the Amendments are not expected to have any significant implications or administrative burden for the mining industry since an existing environmental emergency plan prepared under another Act of Parliament may be used or amended to comply with the requirements for an environmental emergency plan prepared under the Regulations.

Petrochemicals

Petrochemicals are a category of organic chemicals derived principally from natural gas liquids obtained from natural gas processing plants, and naphtha and light gas oil obtained from oil refineries.

Canada’s petrochemical plants are concentrated in Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. These three provinces account for about 94% of production. Most of the recent growth in the industry has occurred in Alberta, based almost exclusively on natural gas feed-stocks. On the basis of shipments, 54% of the output originates in Alberta. The Canadian petrochemical industry had shipments of $4.8 billion in 2003, and employed more than 1 400 people in 16 manufacturing establishments.

The petrochemical sector will most likely be affected by the addition of styrene to Schedule 1. Styrene, a clear, colourless liquid derived from petroleum and natural gas by-products, is one of the main petrochemicals produced by the sector and represented 11% of total production in 2005. Styrene is used as an input in the production of plastic materials used in thousands of strong, flexible, and lightweight products that are part of our day-to-day life. However, styrene also occurs in the environment and is a natural component of many common foods, such as coffee, strawberries and cinnamon.

In 2003, the two major manufacturers of styrene in Canada each produced quantities exceeding 400 kt. In Canada, the total domestic demand for styrene and its by-products totalled 236 kt, and exports totalled 573 kt in 2003.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Status quo

Taking no actions with respect to the 33 substances and classes of substances (a total of 41 substances) following their evaluation was examined but was rejected on the grounds that it would not reduce the potential risks to the environment and to human health and life from the uncontrolled, unplanned or accidental release of any of these substances into the environment. This option would also not allow Environment Canada to deliver on its commitment to amend the Regulations to list substances that were determined to pose an environmental emergency risk following the completion of their evaluations. In addition, this option would not allow for improving the clarity of some of the provisions of the Regulations or to reduce the administrative burden that was imposed on some of the regulatees.

Voluntary approach

A threat and risk evaluation of potential releases of hazardous substances was performed which indicated that facilities or places that produce, use or store these substances in quantities equal to or greater than the prescribed threshold quantity pose a significant risk to human health, public safety and the environment. Though environmental emergency planning could be administered voluntarily or through private sector associations, there is no assurance that environmental emergency plans would be prepared and implemented. Due to the nature of the potential impacts on the environment and human life and health, preparing and implementing environmental emergency plans on a voluntary basis would not have been adequate to achieve the required level of preparedness needed to protect Canadians and the environment.

Amendments to the Regulations

This alternative is considered to be the most appropriate, since it allows Environment Canada to deliver on the commitment to evaluate the additional 49 toxic substances that were already on Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 and other substances of concern. The addition of the 33 substances and classes of substances (a total of 41 substances) to the regulated list will improve the level of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery relating to environmental emergencies at facilities or places that store or use any of these substances in quantities and concentrations at or above the prescribed thresholds, thereby minimizing the impact on the environment and on human life and health. In addition, the Amendments clarify certain provisions of the Regulations and address the unnecessary notification and reporting of an uncontrolled, unplanned or accidental release of substances that are components of mixtures not captured by the Regulations.

Benefits and costs

Analytical framework

The approach to the cost-benefit analysis identifies, quantifies and monetizes where possible, the incremental costs and benefits associated with the Amendments. The cost-benefit analysis is based on the following elements and considerations:

  • Incremental impact: Incremental impacts are analysed in terms of the reduction in the consequences of catastrophic events and the costs and benefits to the Government, the regulatees as well as society. The incremental impacts were determined by comparing two scenarios: one without and the other with the regulatory requirements. The two scenarios are presented below.
  • Timeframe for the analysis: The timeframe used to evaluate the impacts is 25 years. The first year of the analysis is assumed to be 2011, when the Amendments will come into force and the requirements of the Regulations will apply to persons who own or have the charge, management or control of the new listed substances.
  • Approach to cost and benefit estimates: To the extent possible, costs have been estimated in monetary terms and expressed in 2009 Canadian dollars. In instances where certain cost components could not be valued due to a lack of appropriate data, the cost impact has been assessed in qualitative terms.

    Attempts were made to estimate the benefits associated with the Amendments. However, due to the lack of appropriate Canadian data, damage estimates generated by the U.S. EPA were used to evaluate the benefits in Canada. Additional qualitative assessment of benefits was done for items that could not be quantified at the time the analysis was conducted.

  • Discount rate: A discount rate of 3% was used for this analysis. Sensitivity analysis using 0% and 7% discount rates to test the volatility of the estimates to the discount rate was also conducted.

Base case

Evidence from the past in Canada and elsewhere suggests that an environmental emergency involving an explosive, flammable or toxic substance can result in severe impacts on human health and lives and the environment and in physical property losses in the vicinity of the event (e.g. the 1966 styrene explosion in Quebec). It is expected that there will continue to be environmental emergencies in respect of toxic, explosive or flammable substances in the future.

In order to estimate the damages associated with environmental emergencies, efforts were put into gathering Canadian-specific information on substance releases and resulting impacts. The data-gathering exercise revealed insufficient Canadian information available to conduct an appropriate analysis. In the United States, the EPA has conducted an extensive analysis (see footnote 3) of the damages related to toxic and hazardous chemical releases with low to high consequences. Given the similarities between the chemical and petroleum industries, including the production facilities, in Canada and the United States, the results of the U.S. EPA analysis were deemed appropriate and they have been used to provide an order of magnitude of damages for Canada.

Regulated case

The regulatory scenario reflects the requirements of the Regulations that apply to regulatees using or storing these substances once the Amendments come into force.

It is expected that there will continue to be substances that, if they enter the environment as a result of an environmental emergency, can result in impacts on human health, the environment and the economy during the 25-year analysis period. This regulatory scenario assumes that although these impacts cannot be completely eliminated, they will be reduced as a result of environmental emergency plans in place at those places or facilities. In addition, in the event of an emergency, response and recovery will be faster.

For the purpose of the Cost and Benefit Analysis (CBA) and based on the analysis conducted by the U.S. EPA, it is assumed that having an environmental emergency plan in place coupled with required testing will reduce the magnitude of accident-related impacts by an average of 60%. This percentage reduction is used in the calculation of the benefits.

Costs

Costs to the regulated industry

A number of sectors are expected to incur costs as a result of the Amendments. Regulatees using or storing the listed substances, including ammonium nitrate, styrene and dichloromethane, will have to prepare or update existing environmental emergency plans, test these plans and incur additional costs for record keeping and reporting.

Cost assumptions

The main cost assumptions include the following:

Regulatees that already have an environmental emergency plan will only need to update the plan to account for the new substances and conduct testing.

Regulatees that currently do not have an environmental emergency plan will need to prepare, implement and test an environmental emergency plan. The Regulations currently require testing of plans every year for each facility.

Preparing new or amending existing environmental emergency plans: An analysis of publicly available information on the use patterns for the 33 substances and classes of substances (a total of 41 substances) being added to the Regulations suggests that the number of facilities or places that will be required to take action under the Amendments will be approximately 344. The number of facilities or places is based on known users of the substances. Of the 344 facilities in terms of size, 185 are small, 133 are medium and 26 are large. For the small facilities, it is estimated that the cost to prepare a new environmental emergency plan is $10,000, and $5,000 to amend an existing one. For medium facilities, the cost to amend an existing environmental emergency plan is $5,000, while cost to prepare a new plan varies between $10,000 and $25,000. For large facilities, it is assumed that they already have environmental emergency plans in place and they will only need to be updated at a cost that varies between $5,000 and $10,000.

Testing of environmental emergency plans: It is assumed that environmental emergency plans will be tested in a five-year cycle in the following manner: full tests are conducted the first year and limited testing is done annually for the four subsequent years. A full test is estimated to cost on average $3,000 for small, $5,000 for medium and $10,000 for large facilities. A limited test is estimated to cost on average $1,000.

Cost estimates

A number of facilities or places, from a wide cross-section of sectors, are expected to be impacted by the Amendments. However, details on the substance quantities and maximum capacity of the containers in which these substances are stored, which are key in determining whether a facility or place will be subject to the Regulations, are to a large degree unknown. The Regulations allow for the use of previous environmental emergency plans, prepared on a voluntary basis or for another government or under another Act of Parliament, as long as all of the requirements of the Regulations are met. For this reason, the Amendments are not expected to have a major impact on those facilities or places that currently have an environmental emergency plan for a substance already regulated in the Regulations. In such cases, those companies may have lower incremental costs associated with compliance with the requirements of the Amendments, as the previous environmental emergency plan can likely be used as is or be easily modified to include the newly regulated substance(s). For example, equipment, emergency contacts and training may be the same regardless of the substance being addressed.

Approximately 10 petrochemical companies throughout Canada, most of which have their facilities located in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec will be affected by the Amendments due to the addition of styrene to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Given that these facilities are already subject to the Regulations for other substances, modifications to their existing plans are not expected to have a significant impact on them.

The cost of compliance can be expressed as the time and resources required to prepare or amend, implement and test an environmental emergency plan and complete the required notices and report. Due to the diversity of the operations at facilities or places subject to the Regulations and the requirement to have an environmental emergency plan for each facility or place, it is difficult to estimate accurately the cost for regulatees to comply with the Regulations. However, based on the number of facilities or places reported and the above assumptions on the costs of amending an existing plan or preparing a new one, the present values of the incremental costs to industry over the 25-year period of analysis are estimated to be $2.88 million for preparing and updating existing plans, and $10.68 million for testing the plans.

The Regulations also include reporting and record-keeping requirements, which would result in an incremental cost to the industry of $0.39 million in present-value terms.

The present value of the total incremental costs to industry is, therefore, estimated to be $13.96 million over the 25-year period of analysis.

Costs to the Government

The federal government is expected to incur costs for implementing the Amendments. Government costs include compliance promotion activities as well as the administration of submitted information and reports. No incremental enforcement cost is expected.

Government costs include compliance promotion activities which are expected to include mail-outs of the Regulations, developing and distributing promotional materials (i.e. fact sheets, Web material), attendance at trade association conferences and presentations of workshops/information sessions to explain the Regulations. Compliance promotion activities will also include responding to and tracking inquiries, in addition to contributing to the compliance promotion database.

Other administrative costs to government would be incurred as a result of maintaining databases and reviewing declarations or submissions from regulatees. These incremental costs are assumed to be negligible and have not been quantified for the purpose of this analysis.

The value of total federal government costs is estimated to be $240,000 for the first year of implementation. These costs are expected to significantly decrease over the years, reaching $50,000 in year 3 and a service level amount of $5,000 in the last year of the 2011–2021 time period. The present-value of costs to government over the 25-year period is estimated to be $0.37 million.

Total costs

The present value of total industry and government costs associated with the Amendments over the 25-year period is estimated to be $14.33 million.

Benefits

The Amendments will contribute to further protecting the environment, human health and safety of Canadians and will bring additional benefits to the regulated community and to the Government by reducing the administrative burden and impacts on the health care system. These benefits will be realized through promoting prevention, preparedness, response and recovery related to environmental emergencies at facilities or places using or storing the listed substances. Although efforts have been made to estimate the benefits, data and information for quantification and monetization of these benefits were not always readily available. In these instances, qualitative analyses have been conducted.

Benefits assumptions

Given the lack of available information in Canada to estimate the magnitude of the expected damages resulting from environmental emergencies, estimates produced by the U.S. EPA are used instead and presented in the Canadian context. Based on the assumption that the probability of a disaster occurring is proportional to the production of chemicals and refined petroleum products, the U.S. EPA estimated that for large magnitude events, damages can range from $31 million to $310 million ($US). Medium magnitude events can result in damages ranging from $22 million to $349 million ($US). These events include environmental, human health and economic impacts.

Extrapolating this assumption to Canada, with annual production of chemicals and refined petroleum products representing about 11% of that of the United States, damages stemming from environmental emergencies could range from $5 million to $53.6 million ($CAN).

Environmental benefits

An environmental emergency plan will allow facilities or places to prevent or react quickly to an environmental emergency. The plan will also help to minimize the impact on the environment, including air, water, soil, vegetation and biodiversity. Based on the assumption above, the Amendments are estimated to result in annual environmental benefits ranging from $0.27 million to $0.73 million in Canada. Over the 25-year analysis period, these benefits are estimated to range from $4.88 million to $13.09 million in present-value terms.

Further, having an environmental emergency plan will allow for faster recovery following an environmental emergency and the costs associated with any required remediation will be reduced, since resources needed to take remedial action could be mobilized immediately following the event.

There are additional benefits to the environment and society as a result of the new provision requiring the submission of a notice to the Minister when a regulated facility or place is being closed or decommissioned. The identification of closed or decommissioned facilities or places will allow the government to monitor the facility or place and, if necessary, require that the risks continue to be effectively managed through intergovernmental fora in place such as the Regional Environmental Emergency Teams (“REET”), thus decreasing the potential environmental and health impacts associated with such facilities or places.

Human health and safety benefits

The listing of these substances and the preparation and implementation of the environmental emergency plans will provide human health and safety benefits, such as avoided deaths, injuries and evacuations, both within and surrounding the facility or place. This will result in avoided health impacts by minimizing acute exposure to those toxic, flammable and hazardous substances and other avoided health related impacts such as the costs for evacuation or sheltering. Additional benefits will be realized for first responders to an environmental emergency where increased awareness of the hazardous substances found on site can decrease potentially life-threatening exposures.

Based on the assumptions above, the Amendments are estimated to result in annual human health benefits ranging from $2.26 million to $28.80 million. These health benefits include reduction in fatalities, injuries, sheltering in place and evacuation. Over the 25-year analysis period, these benefits are estimated to range between $40.54 million and $516.61 million in present-value terms.

Benefits to the regulated community

Changes to certain provisions of the Regulations will provide additional benefits to various members of the regulated community. These are discussed below. Due to a lack of information, some benefits could not be quantified and are discussed below qualitatively.

The Amendments are expected to result in a reduction of the extent of damages to the facilities and surrounding properties during an environmental emergency. Using assumptions similar to above, these economic benefits are estimated to range between $0.55 million to $2.63 million. These benefits include reduced operation disruptions and productivity losses. Over the 25-year analysis period, these benefits are estimated to range between $9.89 million and $47.22 million in present-value terms.

Farmers storing anhydrous ammonia and/or ammonia solution for the purpose of being used by them as an agricultural nutrient will experience a reduction in the administrative burden imposed by the Regulations since under this circumstance, notification to the Minister and an environmental emergency plan are no longer required. It is expected that a number of farmers already subject to the Regulations will no longer be required to prepare and implement an environmental emergency plan for these substances. Therefore, unless the farmers use anhydrous ammonia and/or ammonia solution for another purpose or have other regulated substances at the facility or place, these farmers will no longer be subject to the Regulations.

The Amendments will reduce the administrative burden on farmers or any other person who own or have the charge, management or control of propane when the substance is stored in a container with a maximum capacity of less than 10 tonnes and is located at a distance of at least 360 m from the boundary of the property on which it is located. This new provision for propane will decrease the number of regulatees that need to notify the Minister and prepare an environmental emergency plan under the Regulations. Due to the absence of reliable information, it was not possible to estimate the number of persons that will no longer be subject to the Regulations or the benefits to them. A number of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will also likely benefit from this provision.

No significant impact is expected for the mining industry, because the explosive grade ammonium nitrate is already subject to control and planning requirements for safety reasons through the 2008 Restricted Components Regulations mentioned above and the existing environmental emergency plans prepared under the Explosives Act will likely only need to be slightly modified to comply with the Amendments.

Benefits to the Government

The Amendments will reduce the administrative burden on Government as a result of reduced notification and reporting by regulatees.

Following discussion with industry associations in 2005, it is estimated that several thousand SMEs, primarily farmers, will no longer be subject to the Regulations. Therefore, the Amendments, particularly those related to the storage of propane and the storage of anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution by farmers for use by them as an agricultural nutrient are expected to lower the administrative burden on Government as well. As a consequence, the Government will not have to collect the required information and target further compliance promotion to these facilities. In addition, there will be cost savings on enforcement activities with regard to these SMEs.

Additional benefits also include a decrease in the costs associated with the assessment of notifications and reports of environmental emergencies under section 201 of CEPA 1999, as there is no notification and reporting requirement for a regulated substance that is a component of a mixture that does not have an emergency pathway since it is excluded from the list of substances for the purposes of the definition of “substance” in section 193 of CEPA 1999.

Total benefits

The present value of the total benefits associated with the Amendments over the 25-year period is estimated to range from $55.31 million to $576.92 million.

Conclusions

As presented above, the Amendments will impose costs on industry and government but would also result in significant benefits from the reduction in the magnitude of environmental emergencies and their resulting health, environmental and physical impacts. These costs and benefits are summarized in the table below.

Table 3: Incremental cost-benefit statement (in millions of dollars)

Incremental Costs and Benefits

Base Year: 2011

2021

Final Year: 2035

Total 25
Years (PV) 2011–2035

Average Annual
(PV)

A. Quantified costs

Industry costs

Environmental emergency plans

2.88

-

-

2.88

0.12

Plan testing

1.48

1.48

0.36

10.68

0.43

Reporting

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.39

0.02

Total industry costs

4.38

1.50

0.38

13.96

0.56

Government costs

Enforcement

-

-

-

-

-

Compliance promotion and administration

0.24

0.01

-

0.37

0.01

Total Government costs

0.24

0.01

-

0.37

0.01

Total costs

4.62

1.51

0.38

14.33

0.57

B. Quantified benefits

Human health

Low

2.26

2.26

2.6

40.54

1.62

High

28.80

28.80

28.80

516.61

20.66

Environmental

Low

0.27

0.27

0.27

4.88

0.20

High

0.73

0.73

0.73

13.09

0.52

Economic

Low

0.55

0.55

0.55

9.89

0.40

High

2.63

2.63

2.63

47.22

1.89

Total benefits

Low

3.08

3.08

3.08

55.31

2.21

High

32.17

32.17

32.17

576.92

23.08

C. Net benefits

Low

-1.54

1.58

2.70

40.98

1.64

High

27.54

30.66

31.79

562.59

22.50

D. Qualitative impacts

Regulatees

  • Reduction in productivity loss.
  • Reduction in operation disruptions.

Government

  • Reduced compliance promotion and administrative costs to government due to the reduction in the number of regulatees, mostly SMEs and farmers that would need to report or to meet the requirements of the Amendments.

Agriculture sector

  • Reduction of the regulatory burden on farmers who store ammonia for the purposes of being used as an agricultural nutrient by them through regulatory harmonization with the U.S.
  • Reduced administrative burden on some persons who own or have the charge, management or control of propane due to a provision targeting tank size and location relative to property limit.

Workers and surrounding communities

  • Improved safety at facilities or places and surrounding communities through the preparation of E2 plans, testing of plans and community awareness activities.
  • Reduction in needs for sheltering of citizen living in the vicinity of the facility or place.

Environment and health

  • Greater protection of environment and health from environmental emergencies through improved emergency response time and subsequent remediation activities.
  • Reduction in off-site property and environmental damages.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the discount rate from 0% to 3% and 7% to determine the direction and magnitude of changes to the final estimates of incremental costs and benefits associated with the Amendments. The results, presented in Table 4 indicated that changes in the estimates of costs, benefits and net impacts were proportional to changes in the discount rate.

Table 4: Summary of impact (millions of 2009 dollars)

Discount rate

0%

3%

7%

Range

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Costs

18.37

18.37

14.33

14.33

11.17

11.17

Benefits

77.10

804.16

55.31

576.92

38.45

401.09

Net impact

58.73

785.79

40.98

562.59

27.28

389.92

Competitiveness

Persons who own or have the charge, management or control of substances in Schedule 1 of the Regulations are subject to the requirements of the Regulations if the substance quantity equals or exceeds regulated thresholds or if the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum container capacity that equals or exceeds regulated thresholds. If both of these circumstances are met, persons must prepare and implement environmental emergency plans, test them and submit notifications and reports to the Minister. However, 30 of the 33 substances and classes of substances (a total of 38 of the 41 substances) are used in Canada in small quantities, therefore Canadian firms or sectors are expected to incur none to negligible impact on their businesses or on their international competitiveness. The remaining three substances, ammonium nitrate, styrene and acetic acid, were requested for addition by stakeholders involved with these substances with no indication of potential impacts on them. Hence, no competitiveness impacts are expected as a result of these additions. Finally, the Amendments provide an exclusion from requirements of the Regulations for quantities of anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution that are stored by farmers for use by them as an agricultural nutrient. This provision therefore imposes no competitive disadvantage on farmers and harmonizes the Regulations with a similar exemption in the U.S.

Finally, since these Amendments do not entail any change in process, product reformulation or technology, it is anticipated that the Amendments will have negligible or no impact on the international competitiveness of Canadian firms or sectors producing or using the substances.

Rationale

When the Regulations were published in 2003, based on consultations with non-profit stakeholders, Environment Canada committed to evaluate the remaining 49 CEPA 1999 toxic substances, including classes of substances, for their possible inclusion to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. The evaluation found that many of these substances have the potential to create an environmental emergency and that some form of action was necessary. During the evaluation of these substances and implementation of the Regulations, Environment Canada and environmental emergency stakeholders also identified additional changes that should be made in order to clarify the regulatory text. To address these issues, a number of alternatives were evaluated, and as described above, amending the Regulations was identified as the best option that allows for the listing of the additional substances and the clarification of regulatory text. These Amendments contribute to the protection of human health and lives and the environment and provide for the continuous improvement of the Regulations, through enhanced protections, clarifications and reduction of burdens on some regulatees.

The Amendments will result in costs to regulatees as well as government. It was not possible to determine all elements of cost and the exact number of facilities and places that will be affected by the Amendments. However, the main cost to be borne from the Amendments is related to preparing or amending environmental emergency plans. An estimated 344 regulatees may need to modify existing emergency plans or prepare new ones. The present value of the total compliance cost to regulatees is estimated to be $13.96 million.

The Amendments will result in increased safety to people living in the vicinity of facilities or places that store or use the listed substances. The analysis shows that the benefit of increased protection to health, safety and the environment could range from $55.31 million to $576.92 million. The impacts analysis concluded that the Amendments will result in a net benefit ranging from $40.98 million to $562.59 million or a benefit-cost ratio of at least 4 to 1. Overall, these Amendments will be beneficial to Canadians.

The Amendments were developed in consultation with industry, ENGOs and environmental emergency stakeholders and in coordination and cooperation with other federal departments and provincial governments. The Amendments also incorporate modifications based on comments received following pre-publication in, the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, in order to provide greater clarity to the regulatory requirements and to reduce the burden on regulatees. Environment Canada is also working cooperatively with other interested provinces to create federal/provincial harmonization in the implementation of the Regulations, including these Amendments.

Consultation

In June 2005, Environment Canada informed the governments of the provinces and territories through the CEPA National Advisory Committee about the proposed Amendments. In addition, Environment Canada’s intention to publish these proposed Amendments was presented to industry, provinces, territories and other key stakeholders as part of a formal consultation package that was circulated in July 2005.

This multi-stakeholder group, developed through consultations on the Regulations, also provided advice to the Minister during the development of the proposed Amendments. Members of the multi-stakeholder group included

  • federal government departments;
  • provincial/territorial governments;
  • industry associations and individual companies; and
  • non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Following the distribution of the consultation package to the multi-stakeholder group, there was broad agreement on the proposed changes among stakeholders. However, some concerns were raised and are summarized below.

  • A federal government department expressed concerns about the tracking and responsibility for abandoned facilities or places and wanted assurance that the information is made accessible to the first responder community.

    Environment Canada indicated that the Amendments would contain a new provision requiring that a notification be sent to the Minister at least 30 days before the permanent closing or decommissioning of facilities or places or as soon as feasible in the case of extraordinary circumstances. This information, which will be accessible to the first responder community, will allow Environment Canada and first responders to track facilities or places before they become abandoned.
  • Propane industry representatives voiced their opposition to joint container-owner responsibility as being neither effective nor efficient.

    Environment Canada maintains that some SMEs may have very little knowledge or understanding of the potential risks and impacts associated with an environmental emergency involving propane tanks. Environment Canada and the propane industry are working collaboratively to find the most effective means to reduce the risks of an accident at smaller SME facilities. Environment Canada will decide on the best course of action at a later date.
  • Representatives from the propane industry raised concerns about the fact that the use of propane as a fuel is excluded in the United States but not in Canada. Additional concerns were raised regarding the requirements for annual testing of propane as being too onerous.

    A provision is being proposed that would exclude quantities of propane stored in containers with a maximum capacity of less than 10 t located at least 360 m from the boundaries of the property on which they are located in the calculation of the total propane quantity at the facility or place for the purposes of compliance with the Regulations.
  • Some stakeholders that are involved with acetic acid, styrene and ammonium nitrate have requested that these substances be added to the Regulations.

    Environment Canada, based on its own evaluation, agrees and has proposed adding these substances to the regulated list of substances.
  • An academic researcher requested that glycol ethers be addressed as part of the proposed Amendments.

    Environment Canada clarified that it had not yet assessed glycol ethers and for this reason this chemical group could not be addressed in the current amendment process. However, a recent assessment has indicated that one of the glycol ethers, 2-ethoxyethyl acetate, possesses the environmental emergency hazards that would make it a possible candidate for future amendments.
  • The mining industry raised concerns about listing heavy metal concentrations and requested that slag, waste rock in tailings, solid residues, ores and concentrates be excluded from the requirements under the proposed Amendments.

    After consideration, Environment Canada agreed and is proposing a new provision that will exclude quantities of the substance that are found in slag, waste rock in tailings, solid residues, ores and ore concentrates, as they do not have a realistic emergency pathway to release any of the regulated substances.
  • Mining industry representatives requested that the proposed Amendments not apply to the explosive grade of ammonium nitrate.

    Environment Canada explained and industry representatives accepted that there was no way to differentiate between explosive and agricultural grades of ammonium nitrate, since they both have the same CAS number. The solid form of agricultural grade ammonium nitrate is no longer expected to be manufactured in Canada. Environment Canada is proposing to add ammonium nitrate in the liquid form at 81% concentration because of the explosive potential at this grade, and would also add ammonium nitrate in the solid form at 60%, since fertilizer grade can also explode at that concentration and can still be imported into Canada.
  • No comments were received from environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs).

Comments following publication of the proposed Amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ

In June 2007 the proposed Amendments were published in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, for a 60-day comment period. The majority of the comments received were in support of the proposed changes. However, concerns and issues raised as well as Environment Canada’s responses to them are summarized below:

  • A chemical industry representative is concerned that the percentage concentration based on the proportion of the substance to the weight of the mixture in column 2 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations would create an issue for the determination of concentration of pure substances such as gases in the air. This representative suggested the use of a volume percentage as opposed to the proposed weight percentage for gaseous mixtures.

    Environment Canada has evaluated this request and based on expert advice has decided to retain the percentage concentration based on the proportion of the weight of the substance to the weight of the mixture.
  • A chemical industry representative expressed concern that there could be instances where the use of a substance may be immediately discontinued, either by plant closures or process changes; however, subsection 3(5) of the Regulations requires that the regulated community wait for 12 months before notifying the Minister that the substance is no longer on site.

    Environment Canada believes that this issue is addressed under the provision on closure and decommissioning of facilities. Further clarification will be provided in the Guidelines.
  • A chemical industry representative recommended that Environment Canada allow 90 days from the day of registration to the coming into force of the Amendments in order to provide companies sufficient time to develop a compliance regime.

    Environment Canada considered this recommendation but decided to not provide the requested extension as the Regulations already provide 90 days for persons to comply with regulatory requirements. As provided by the Regulations, from the time persons become subject to the Regulations, they have 90 days to submit their initial notice after the later of the day on which the Regulations come into force and the day on which the substance is in a quantity that is equal to or exceeds the prescribed threshold quantity or the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity equal to or exceeding the prescribed quantity threshold.
  • An industry association felt that the 0.22 tonnes threshold to meet the requirements of the Regulations should be increased to 4.5 tonnes as this threshold is presently used for most substances listed in the Regulations. The majority of chemical companies using such products are well equipped to deal with a spill of one or two drums without any impact to human health or the environment. They feel that the benefits of such low volumes are negligible related to the risk that is posed to human health or the environment.

    Environment Canada clarified that the Risk Evaluation Framework provides the basis for calculation and choosing the threshold for substances on Schedule 1 based on their toxicity level for human health and the environment. The low threshold of 0.22 tonnes is considered appropriate to control hazardous substances on Schedule 1 and will benefit both the environment and Canadians’ health.
  • An electrical utility expressed concerns regarding the addition of sulphur hexafluoride to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Clarification was required on the spill reporting quantity in accordance with section 201 of CEPA 1999 as well as in regard to the obligation of the Regulations should a leak occur within the equipment.

    Environment Canada clarified that the focus of the Regulations is on the prevention of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from releases or the reasonable likelihood of releases that are considered to be an environmental emergency as defined by section 193 of CEPA 1999. Environment Canada explained that CEPA 1999 does not set any thresholds for the reporting of an environmental emergency.
  • The electrical utility questioned the inhalation toxicity trigger for the addition of sulphur hexafluoride. The utility was of the view that gaseous sulphur hexafluoride, used in gas insulated switchgear and breakers, should not be added to Part 2 of Schedule 1 since it is chemically inert and essentially non-toxic.

    Environment Canada reviewed the information used to identify the inhalation toxicity of sulphur hexafluoride and determined that the addition of the substance to Schedule 1 of the Regulations is appropriate based on the high level of inhalation toxicity of this substance.
  • A chemical industry representative indicated that all three entries for the nonylphenols have the same literal name which could cause confusion in the regulated community.

    Environment Canada agreed and has modified Schedule 1 accordingly.
  • Representatives from the mining and chemical industries suggested the wording of the provision addressing facilities being closed or decommissioned be broadened to account for the fact that industrial facilities may be closed temporarily for maintenance.

    Environment Canada agreed and has modified the wording in section 5.1 to address this comment. A schedule has also been created to clarify the type of information to be submitted to Environment Canada.
  • Representatives of the mining and the petroleum industries requested the creation of an exclusion for nickel oxide in solid form above 10 microns in diameter since above this size it is unlikely to cause an environmental emergency.

    Environment Canada agreed and has added this exclusion to the Amendments.
  • Representatives of an industry association had some concerns with regard to exempting farmers from preparing an environmental emergency plan. The association indicated that the size of the average farm has significantly increased over the years, leading to increased usage and storage of anhydrous ammonia on some farms. To that effect, it would be possible that some larger farms may store quantities of anhydrous ammonia in excess of 4.5 tonnes, and/or volumes similar to that of a smaller agri-retailer. Therefore, these farms should be treated the same as retailers.

    Environment Canada clarified, and the association representatives agreed, that even if quantities of anhydrous ammonia stored for use as an agricultural nutrient by farmers exceed the threshold, the risk to the general public is adequately managed. In addition, excluding quantities of anhydrous ammonia stored by farmers for use by them as an agricultural nutrient will harmonize the Regulations with similar provisions in the U.S.
  • Shipping industry representatives expressed concerns that substances carried on their ships would not be exempted under the new paragraph 2(d) of the proposed Amendments and they could, arguably, be covered by the regulatory requirements if a ship remains at a terminal for more than 72 hours.

    Environment Canada considered this request and revised the exclusion in paragraph 2(d) of the Amendments to include the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

Additional consultations following publication of the proposed Amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ

  • Further consultations were undertaken with the provinces and territories in May 2009 through the CEPA National Advisory Committee. The provinces and territories were supportive of publishing the final regulatory amendments.
  • Environment Canada also consulted with the propane industry in June 2009 and early 2010. The industry had questions and concerns related to the Amendments as well as the implementation of the E2 Regulations. After Environment Canada clarified the requirements of the E2 Regulations and the Amendments, the propane industry was supportive of the Amendments and will continue to work with the department on issues of mutual interest related to the implementation of the Regulations.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The Amendments add additional substances to Schedule 1 of the Regulations, making persons that own or who have the charge, management or control of substances at facilities or places where they are stored or used subject to the requirements of the Regulations if the quantity on site equals or exceeds regulated threshold quantities or if the substance is in a quantity that is greater than zero and is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity that equals or exceeds regulated threshold quantities. Therefore, the Amendments will not result in the development of any new activity or program with respect to implementation beyond those targeting compliance promotion and that are already in place for the Regulations. These activities include mailing the Amendments to prospective regulatees, answering inquiries, developing and distributing promotional materials, responding to and tracking inquiries, and contributing to the compliance promotion database.

Since the Amendments are made under CEPA 1999, enforcement officers will, when verifying compliance with the requirements of the Amendments and the Regulations, apply the Compliance and Enforcement Policy implemented for CEPA 1999. The Policy sets out the range of possible responses to violations, such as warnings, directions, environmental protection compliance orders, ticketing, ministerial orders, injunctions, prosecution, and environmental protection alternative measures (which are an alternative to a court trial after the laying of charges for a CEPA 1999 violation). In addition, the Policy explains when Environment Canada will resort to civil suits by the Crown for cost recovery.

When, following an inspection or an investigation, an enforcement officer discovers an alleged violation, the officer will choose the appropriate enforcement action based on the following factors:

  • Nature of the alleged violation: This includes consideration of the damage, the intent of the alleged violator, whether it is a repeat violation, and whether an attempt has been made to conceal information or otherwise subvert the objectives and requirements of the Act.
  • Effectiveness in achieving the desired result with the alleged violator: The desired result is compliance within the shortest possible time with no further repetition of the violation. Factors to be considered include the violator’s history of compliance with the Act, willingness to cooperate with enforcement officers, and evidence of corrective action already taken.
  • Consistency in enforcement: Enforcement officers will consider how similar situations have been handled in determining the measures to be taken to enforce the Act.

Performance measurement and evaluation

A performance measurement and evaluation plan (PMEP) has been developed for these Amendments. It is available upon request. The plan, used to measure the performance of these Amendments, includes a performance measurement strategy and a logic model limited to these Amendments.

The logic model depicts the full scope of the Environmental Emergencies Program — prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and research and development. However, it focuses on these Amendments. The model describes in detail the activities, outputs, and outcomes that are affected by these Amendments. In the logic model, outcomes that are related to the other pillars of the Environmental Emergencies Program and are not related to the regulatory proposal have been omitted for clarity.

As identified in the PMEP, upon implementation of the Amendments, 11 indicators will be monitored to measure the performance of the Amendments. The performance information collected will be summarized and reported annually through various mechanisms which could include the annual report for CEPA 1999, Departmental performance reports, internet publications and mail-outs. The timing of the evaluation of the Environmental Emergencies Program will be determined in the context of the department’s annual five-year risk-based evaluation plan. The evaluation will include an assessment of the Regulations and will address issues related to relevance and performance.

Contacts

Grant Hogg
Environmental Emergencies Division
Environmental Stewardship Branch
Environment Canada
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-953-0607
Fax: 819-997-5029
Email: grant.hogg@ec.gc.ca

Luis Leigh
Impact Analysis and Instrument Choice Division
Strategic Policy Branch
Environment Canada
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-953-1170
Fax: 819-997-2769
Email: luis.leigh@ec.gc.ca

Footnote a
S.C. 2004, c. 15, s. 31.

Footnote b
S.C. 1999, c. 33.

Footnote c
S.C. 2002, c. 7, s. 124

Footnote d
S.C. 1999, c. 33.

Footnote 1
SOR/2003-307

Footnote 2
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40: Protection of the Environment, section 68.125: Exemptions.

Footnote 3
Economic analysis in support of final rule on risk management program regulations for chemical accident release prevention, as required by section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, U.S. EPA, June 2006, Unpublished.