This page has been archived on the Web

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.

Updating the Regulatory Framework for the Transboundary Movement of Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material

Response to Comments from spring 2010 Public Consultations

(November 30, 2010)

A discussion document entitled Updating the Regulatory Framework for the Transboundary Movement of Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Materials was posted on the CEPA Registry website on April 15th, 2010 and public comments were invited until June 14th, 2010.  Identified stakeholders were advised of the comment period via email or regular mail. The consultation period was also highlighted on several Government of Canada websites. Input on the discussion document was received from various stakeholders including individuals, industry, and all levels of government. Those who submitted written comments include the following:

  • Alberta Environment
  • Alcoa Canada
  • Anachemia Canada Inc.
  • Association of Canadian Industries Recycling Coal Ash
  • Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
  • British Columbia Ministry of Environment
  • Building Products of Canada Corp.
  • Canadian Border Services Agency
  • Canadian Chamber of Commerce
  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency
  • Canadian Steel Producers Association
  • Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association
  • Cement Association of Canada
  • City of Winnipeg
  • Clean Harbors Canada Inc.
  • CleanFARMS
  • Dell Canada Inc.
  • Dow Chemical Canada Inc.
  • Electronic Product Stewardship Canada
  • Four industry-led province-wide electronics collection & recycling programs (ACES, ESABC, OES, SWEEP)
  • Hazco Environmental Services
  • IBM Canada
  • Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
  • Manitoba Conservation
  • National Association for Information Destruction - Canada
  • Natural Resources Canada
  • Network Recycling Inc.
  • Nova Scotia Environment
  • Ontario Ministry of the Environment
  • Railway Association of Canada
  • Recyclo-Centre
  • Region of York
  • RPR Environmental
  • Safety-Kleen Canada Inc.
  • Stericycle
  • Teck Metals Ltd.
  • Veolia
  • Wood Preservation Canada
  • Xstrata Canada

Stakeholder comments were broadly summarized and organized into categories, with responses provided in the table below.  All stakeholder comments received will be considered in the development of proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.

Categories:

Development of an Electronic System for Notices, Permits and Movement Documents
Summary of CommentResponse
Specific consultations with industry should be organized in relation to the development of an electronic system in order to ensure that the system is efficient for all regulatees.Environment Canada will engage stakeholders throughout the development and implementation of an electronic system.
Implementation of Regulations
Summary of CommentResponse
Implementation of regulatory changes is often not well communicated creating confusion in the industry.A coming into force date following publication of the final regulations in Canada Gazette Part II will be considered. Guidance material will be developed and made available and national information sessions will be considered based on level of demand and/or requests.  Staff will continue to be available to respond to requests for information and assistance.
The "entry into force date" should provide sufficient time for regulatees to adapt.
There is a need to determine the ability of the regulatory regime in Canada to implement the Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) provision.As part of the regulatory development process, a cost and benefit analysis will be conducted including administrative costs to industry and government. A Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement will be published with the proposed regulatory provisions in Canada Gazette Part I.
New provisions for non-hazardous waste and EEE will significantly increase the demand on Environment Canada staff.  It will be imperative that adequate resources including human resources be allocated to implement the proposed changes.
The cost, benefits and impacts of the regulations, not limited to the proposed changes, should be revisited.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement should fully account for all costs, including both the direct and indirect costs associated with the regulations.
Permits
Summary of CommentResponse
Environment Canada should include a simplified permit renewal process instead of the current full re-evaluation of a notice.Environment Canada will review the notification process to see if any gains in efficiency could be achieved while developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.  In the case of imports, stakeholders may apply to have their receiving facilities pre-approved. Pre-approval reduces the time needed to assess and issue a permit. More information on pre-approved facilities can be found in the EIHWHRMR User Guide.
The notice and permit validity period should be extended from one year to two or three years to reduce the administration work of reviewing and approving notices.The requirements regarding the period of validity for the notice and permit are set in the Basel Convention, the OECD Decision and the Canada-US agreement.

The OECD Decision allows for a 3 year validity period for the notice and permit in the case of pre-approved recycling facilities.

Environment Canada will take these comments into consideration and will review the time period for which a permit may be valid while developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.
Return of Shipment Process
Summary of CommentResponse
A simplified process needs to be developed for shipments that need to be returned to the country of origin.  Currently a new permit needs to be issued causing delays.  Environment Canada should look into the possibility of issuing pre-approved permits for the return of a quantity of residue based on the initial export or import permit.The need for a shipment to be returned results from the inability of the receiving facility to complete the disposal or recycling operation in accordance with the permit. This may be due to unforeseen operational changes or due to a difference between the material received and the actual permitted material.

When the material being returned is different from how the material on the initial shipment is identified, a pre-approved permit for a return is not possible. This is because the actual characteristics of the material are unknown when the initial permit is issued.

Environment Canada will review internal processes to see if any gains in efficiency can be achieved for processing returns while developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.
Movement Document
Summary of CommentResponse
The requirement to return completed movement documents to Environment Canada within 3 days is problematic. The time period allowed is too short.

The Regulations currently require a permit holder to send to Environment Canada:

  1. a copy of the movement document (Copy 1- Parts A&B complete) within 3 working days following the day of shipment; and
  2. a copy of the movement document (Copy 3 – Parts A, B &C complete) within 3 working days after the day of delivery to the authorized facility.

These copies of documents can be received by Environment Canada by email or by fax, thereby reducing the time required for transmission.

The requirement for distribution of the movement document within three days is based on the requirement set in the OECD Decision.

Any changes to the movement document needs to be done in concert with provincial/territorial authorities.Any contemplated changes to the movement document will be reviewed by federal, provincial and territorial authorities.
In the current process, Environment Canada receives the movement document when the waste is shipped and again when it is received. Then the confirmation of disposal is sent.  Simplification to this process could be achieved by reducing or grouping the communications.Environment Canada will review the movement document procedures to see if the number of communications could be reduced, as well as the required paperwork, while developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.
The paperwork required under the current EIHWHRMR creates a large administrative burden on companies.
There is a problem with transboundary document collection.  Notifications attached to the movement document are often separated at the border and even discarded by customs officials.The notification document is not required at the border crossing.  Only the movement document and the permit are required and/or, as appropriate: permit amendments, multiple carrier forms and PELES.  Environment Canada works in collaboration with the Canada Border Services Agency on the content of training offered to border services officers related to the EIHWHRMR.
Movement by Rail
Summary of CommentResponse
For multi modal shipments, the regulations should recognize that transportation documents adequately confirm possession, care and control and waste tracking documents provide ultimate confirmation of initial shipment and final delivery/receipt.The provision related to the movement document for multi-modal shipments will be reviewed as well as the guidance material to ensure the requirements for both are clear.
Rail movements, managed by the rail consist, do not allow successive carriers to sign onto with the transfer of waste. Guidance documents should describe the process better for those situations.
The proposed modification to the IMHWR to “remove the requirement for the movement document to be submitted to provinces and territories and replaced with a requirement to maintain a copy of it with the shipment while in transit” is problematic.  The rail industry is heavily reliant on electronic data interchange and copies of the movement document do not accompany the shipment.
Document Retention
Summary of CommentResponse
A document retention period of 2 years rather than 3 for interprovincial movements would make it consistent with Ontario's requirements.Environment Canada will take these comments into consideration and will review the time required for retention of documents while developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.
Record retention should be 5 years instead of 3 for consistency with other sections of CEPA 1999.
Authorized Facilities for managing EEE
Summary of CommentResponse
There is insufficient information regarding how authorized facilities for the management of EEE will be determined.Facilities are authorized by the jurisdiction in which they operate, in accordance with their requirements.
What will be the criteria and process used to identify authorised facilities in the management of EEE for recycling, reuse and disposal?
Definition of disposal and recycling
Summary of CommentResponse
The issue of substances in articles or products poses a number of regulatory challenges. Environment Canada should consider excluding articles or products from the final regulations.Environment Canada will take these comments into consideration while developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I, as well as guidance material.

Non-hazardous recyclable materials will not be covered by the regulatory provisions.
The regulations should recognize that a waste can become a useful product and be excluded.
A good definition of disposal is needed in order to ensure that non-hazardous waste provisions do not apply to materials that have an energy value or replace feedstock in the cement or steel industry for example.
There is ambiguity and a lack of clear criteria to differentiate what processes constitute disposal or recovery with respect to the definition of non-hazardous materials to be covered by the proposed regulatory provisions. How will shipments exported or imported under disposal/recycling codes R1 and D10 be differentiated at the border.  R1 shipments would not be subject to the non-haz waste provisions and D10 shipments would be covered.  Lack of clarity may cause problems at the border crossings.
Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of EIHWHRMR have codes that allow for hazardous waste/recyclables to be imported without clearly identifying the end disposal/recycling method. For example: D13, D14, D17, R16.Any movement to an interim operation should also specify the final destination and operation.  This was the intent in the current regulations and will be reviewed to ensure the proposed regulatory provisions and guidance material are clear.  For example, if codes D13, D14, D17 are used they should be followed by at least another "D" code identifying the final disposal method and authorized facility at which this will occur.
Definition of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material
Summary of CommentResponse
The discussion paper does not appropriately cover the transboundary procedures for liquid and semi-liquid (or semi-solid) waste. There are different operating conditions for these wastes.The requirements of the regulations would cover notification, prior informed consent and permitting mechanisms for international movements, and tracking for all movements.  The state of the waste or material does not impact these requirements.  The disposal or recycling operation would be authorized by the jurisdiction of import, and safety in transport covered by Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (TDGA) and Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR).
Waste sludges from electro refining purification systems in copper electro refining and electro winning operations (Annex VIII, List A, item 1120 of Basel) does not require control in many countries such as USA, Germany, Belgium, Australia and should be excluded from the EIHWHRMR.Environment Canada will take these comments into consideration and will review the requirements in other jurisdictions to harmonize as appropriate when developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.
Environment Canada is encouraged to streamline regulations with provinces, eliminate duplication and resolve conflicting requirements.In developing the current regulations, Environment Canada harmonized the requirement as appropriate with provincial and territorial requirements.  In developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I, we will once again review requirements of other jurisdictions and harmonize as appropriate.
The classifications of a material in Canada and the United States should be identical, and all compounds and concentrations pass an established 'published-listing criteria'.In the current EIHWHRMR, the definition of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material were harmonized as appropriate with those in the US and the Provinces and Territories.  Environment Canada keeps track of changing international requirements and some corrections to the listings will be included in the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.
The regulations should be very closely harmonized with the international and UN classification rules.
The Regulations should ensure that the 'classification of material' is in concert amongst all International Agreements (i.e. Canada - OECD countries and the Canada - United States Agreements). Once a material is classified it would be the same in all countries. The OECD classification system, which is based on a risk-based approach, is recommended for use in Canada.
Coal combustion products, such as ash, should not be considered as hazardous. US EPA is currently considering it in the proposed rule on "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System".In the EIHWHRMR, the definitions for "hazardous waste" and "hazardous recyclable material" include any material that meets a hazard characteristic, and/or is listed in the Regulations, and is intended for a disposal or recycling operation.  If the coal combustion product meets the definition, it would be subject to the provisions of the Regulations.  Environment Canada has no intent of specifically listing coal ash as a hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material.
The 5 kg or 5 L limit is creating problems with hazardous waste shipments.  This limit is highly restrictive and causes many returned shipments.  This will cause problems with the proposed “non-hazardous waste” definition as well.The intention of the 5 kg or 5 L quantity exclusion is for small shipments of a substance or material not to be subject to the Regulations.  These thresholds will be reviewed in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I.
The exclusion for radioactive materials should be maintained as they are covered by other federal regulations.The Regulations will continue to exclude radioactive materials as the movement and disposal of these materials are controlled by other Canadian acts and regulations.
Products being returned to the manufacturer should be excluded from the regulations.This will be addressed in the development of the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material.  The intention is to cover waste and hazardous recyclable materials.
Treated wood waste and recyclables should not be designated as hazardous as there is no indication that any problem or risk exists when destined for disposal or recycling.Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I.
CAS numbers although thought of as "universal" are not necessarily and should be reviewed broadly.
The regulations must consider the risks associated with the materials being transported. In this manner, hazardous recyclable materials that have little, if any, risk associated with its transportation should not be subject to the same requirements as higher risk materials.Minimizing risks during transportation falls under the mandate of Transport Canada and is currently controlled by the TDGA and TDGR.  Environment Canada's mandate and authority under CEPA 1999 are to ensure that waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) and hazardous recyclable materials that are exported, imported or transported interprovincially, are destined to an authorized facility that will manage them in an environmentally sound manner.  Therefore, the regulations under CEPA 1999 aim to minimize the risk to the environment from disposal or recycling operations.
Leachate Test, Schedule 6 Leachate Regulated Limits
Summary of CommentResponse
Greater distinction needs to be made between disposal and recycling/reuse. The leachate test has very little meaning for recyclables.These regulations are to ensure that waste and recyclables are managed in an environmentally sound manner. In many cases, applying the leachate test on waste and recyclable material allows proper characterization of the material to ensure that it is directed to facilities that will manage them in an environmentally sound manner. The leachate test is a measure of a hazard characteristic.  There are many waste management and recycling processes, other than landfilling, which may result in hazardous constituents coming out of a waste or recyclable material.
Schedule 6 (leachate characteristics) should be fully compatible with those of the US EPA. A 'listings-criteria' for compounds in Schedule 6 should be developed and included in a Guidance Document to the Regulations. For example, in Canada, Glyphosate becomes a hazardous recyclable material at a concentration of 28 mg/L, whereas, in the US it is not included in the list of compounds that have leachate toxicity characteristics, and is a non-hazardous recyclable material. It also carries a non-hazardous classification in most of OECD in Europe.  This creates confusion.Schedule 6 is a Canadian list.  It was developed by Environment Canada and the provinces and territories taking into consideration Health Canada’s Drinking Water Quality Guidelines.  Efforts are made to harmonize Canadian versus US and international listings of controlled wastes and recyclables taking into consideration the different contexts as appropriate.
Schedule 8, Excluded materials when destined for OECD Country for recycling operation
Summary of CommentResponse
A 'listings-criteria' for compounds or programs in Schedule 8 should be developed and included in the Guidance Document to the Regulations.Items listed on Schedule 8 are based on those from Appendix 3 of the OECD Decision C(2001) 107/Final. Subpart B of the Decision outlines the process for assigning wastes destined for recycling in the OECD area to Appendix 3 (not requiring controls) and Appendix 4 (requiring controls). Risk-based criteria are found in Appendix 6.  If a member country wishes to apply these risk-based criteria to manage Appendix 4 wastes as Appendix 3 wastes, it must notify the OECD Secretariat of the rational for this decision. If, however, a member country wishes to assign additional wastes to Appendix 3, it must submit an application to the Basel Convention.
A mechanism should exist to nominate substances to Schedule 8.
Broken CRT glass should be added to Schedule 8 despite the fact that it is listed in the Basel Convention Annexe VIII (A2010) as it could be considered as a low-risk hazardous recyclable similar to the other listed electronic scrap suitable for metal recovery.
Intact CRT should be clearly specified under item 3 of Schedule 8.
Definition of Electronic and Electrical Equipment (EEE)
Summary of CommentResponse
The discussion paper is not clear about the meaning of the words "disposal", "recycling" and "reuse".Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material.
It appears to be inconsistent to classify designated EEE as hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material outside of the current TDGR definitions.  The designated EEE could be regulated under the non-hazardous waste provisions.Minimizing risks during transportation falls under the mandate of Transport Canada and is currently controlled by the TDGA and TDGR.  Environment Canada's mandate and authority under CEPA 1999 are to ensure that waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) and hazardous recyclable materials that are exported, imported or transported interprovincially, are destined to an authorized facility that will manage them in an environmentally sound manner.  Therefore, the regulations under CEPA 1999 aim to minimize the risk to the environment from the disposal or recycling operations in Canada and internationally.

EEE contain toxic substances that may harm the environment and cause human health problems if they are not managed properly when destined for disposal or recycling.
Designating EEE waste/recyclables as hazardous would create inconsistencies with other jurisdictions.  EEE can be managed properly and controlled by Environment Canada without deeming it all hazardous.Proposed regulatory amendments concerning non-hazardous waste are confined to disposal operations and therefore issues pertaining to designated EEE cannot be sufficiently addressed as a non-hazardous waste.
Clarifications are required on the list of designated EEE.  The examples provided can cause confusion (e.g. speakers are only listed in the computing equipment category but not elsewhere. Also, would LED video display devices meet this definition?The consultation paper provides an overview of the categories of designated EEE that are currently under consideration for potential control as a "hazardous waste" or "hazardous recyclable material" under the proposed regulatory amendments.  Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material.
Consideration should be given to better define the broad categories of designated EEE.  The examples listed should be products included but the category should not be limited to those to allow for inclusion of future technologies.
From designated EEE list it seems digital cameras will be covered because they have a LCD video display but, on the other hand, disposable digital cameras would not be covered because they don't have a LCD display.
Need more clarity and guidance on designated EEE. Are the lists inclusive or exclusive?
The list of designated EEE is too prescriptive. EEE definitions vary from steward to steward and this may create a gap in understanding and compliance amongst industry.
The list of designated EEE is too specific and could quickly become outdated. Much of the items on the list are not hazardous.  The list should only designate components that exhibit a hazard (EEE containing batteries, mercury, PCB or leaded CRT).
Will the import of cell phones without the batteries, but still having their LCD display be covered?
The three criteria to insure that EEE destined for direct reuse qualify for the facilitated movement are not sufficient.Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material.
In relation to the criteria for EEE destined for direct reuse, a definition for “functional” is required. This provision should consider criteria regarding energy consumption.
Criterion (ii) defining whether EEE is suitable for direct reuse - "The equipment is accompanied by any accessories deemed essential for its continued operation (rechargeable batteries with their corresponding chargers, remote controls, etc.)" - should be removed as unnecessary on the basis that the existing definition under criterion (iii) - "The equipment is functional" - would include accessories deemed essential to its continued operation.
Clarification is needed on how Canadian exporters and importers can ensure that the direct reuse criteria are to be met.
Export and Import of EEE
Summary of CommentResponse
The correlation between Canadian and US rules for the export and import of EEE destined for disposal or recycling should be improved.Environment Canada will review the US rules for waste EEE and harmonize Canadian requirement as appropriate having considered the different contexts.
The regulations must take into consideration that consumers/businesses should be able to return non-functioning (defective or under warranty) equipment back to the manufacturer in a non-OECD country without classifying the equipment as hazardous waste until it is tested and deemed non-functional.  Similarly, the regulations must also take into consideration that manufacturers should be able to return non-functioning equipment to an Original Equipment Manufacturer in a non-OECD country for business credit.Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material. EEE will only be subject to the regulatory provisions if it is destined for any of the disposal or recycling operation described in Schedule 1 and 2 of the current EIHWHRMR.
Designated EEE for reuse should be subject to the prior informed consent mechanism.Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material.
Designated EEE capable of storing personal information should be treated under a separate regulation. Regulatory provisions should require that all information stored on the equipment be destroyed before it can be exported outside of Canada.End-users are ultimately responsible for data destruction and sanitization of designated EEE prior to relinquishing ownership of the equipment for reuse, refurbishment, recycling or disposal.  Issues concerning data security are beyond the scope of the Department's regulatory authority.

Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material.  EEE will only be subject to the regulatory provisions if it is destined for any of the disposal or recycling operation described in Schedule 1 and 2 of the current EIHWHRMR.
The exemption for EEE sent for recycling within OECD countries and for reuse in non-OECD countries should not apply to EEE capable of storing personal information in order to ensure proper tracking of this used equipment leaving Canada.
What would be the impact of the proposed EEE provisions for companies that transport their EEE to US offices for data removal prior to end-of-life management?
Definition of non-hazardous waste
Summary of CommentResponse
The Basel Convention and Canada-US Agreement limit the definition of non-hazardous waste to household waste and ash from incineration of household waste.  The inclusion of ICI waste would be problematic. It is questionable why ICI, C&D and some other waste streams need to be covered by this regulatory regime.Parties to the Basel Convention are obliged to ensure that transboundary movements of "waste collected from households" and "residues from the incineration of household waste" are conducted in an environmentally sound manner.  The Convention does not preclude Parties from controlling other types of waste and therefore does not provide limits to the definition of non-hazardous waste.  The same consideration applies to the Canada-USA Agreement.  Feedback from stakeholders in 2006 on a proposed regulatory definition of non-hazardous waste indicated that a narrow definition would not be practical given current waste management practices and processes in the industry.
How will border officer distinguish between a shipment of non-hazardous waste destined for disposal and a shipment of non-hazardous recyclables destined for recycling? The first one requires a permit and the second does not.  Guidelines of appropriate documentation required at border crossings will be required to avoid delays.Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material including support to CBSA officers.
Many non-hazardous industrial by-products which are used as ingredients in commercial manufacturing processes should be excluded from regulation.The non-hazardous waste provisions will only apply to waste exported, imported or conveyed in transit for disposal.  The provisions will not cover non-hazardous recyclable materials.
The steel in products can be recycled and re-melted into new steel products.  Therefore steel and steel products should not be defined as waste in the regulatory framework.
Clarifications are required to the effect that non-hazardous waste provisions will only apply to disposal activities and will not cover non-hazardous recyclables.
Is there a defined amount of non-hazardous recyclable material that must be reclaimed through a recovery process in order to qualify for the non-hazardous recyclable material exemption under the regulations? Is there a permissible amount of waste material allowed from that stream?
Clarifications on the definition of non-hazardous waste are required as opposed to non-hazardous recyclables.
How would waste captured by Ontario's liquid industrial waste definition be regulated by the federal regulations?Liquid industrial waste would be captured either as hazardous waste, hazardous recyclable material or non-hazardous waste depending on whether it meets any of the definitions.
The list of waste streams to be included in non-hazardous shouldn't be included in the regulatory provisions.The waste streams listed in the discussion paper were provided as examples of waste streams that would be covered by the definition of non-hazardous waste.  This list is not intended be part of the proposed regulatory provisions.
In the definition of non-hazardous waste, materials such as inert fill materials should not be captured.Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material.
Time for disposal of non-hazardous waste
Summary of CommentResponse
Rather than completely eliminating the prescribed time to complete disposal, and confirm disposal of non-hazardous waste, this prescribed time period should be set to 1 year.Environment Canada will take these comments into consideration and will review the time required for disposal of non-hazardous waste.
The timeline imposing that waste be treated within 5 working days of its date of arrival should be reviewed.The 5 day timeline was suggested during the previous consultations on non-hazardous waste provisions. Based on comments received in 2006, this timeline was dropped from this consultation.
If the regulations were to indicate that final disposal of non-hazardous waste must occur within five days of receipt, would this requirement eliminate the possibility of further processing this waste to recover recyclable materials?Non-hazardous recyclable materials will not be subject to the proposed regulatory provisions.  The provisions for non-hazardous waste only cover those wastes being exported, imported or conveyed in transit for disposal purposes.
The current regulations require that a confirmation of disposal be provided within 30 days of disposal. This time period should be extended to one year.The 30 day period is prescribed by the OECD Decision.
Export and import of non-hazardous waste
Summary of CommentResponse
Non-hazardous provisions should not limit access to environmentally advantageous treatment processes not available in Canada.The proposed regulatory provisions will provide for controls to ensure the waste is managed properly.  Environment Canada does not intend to limit access to environmentally advantageous treatment processes.
Pilot Project - Export of non-hazardous waste
Summary of CommentResponse
Results from the Pilot project should be made available.The pilot project's final report is available on Environment Canada's Website.
Interprovincial Movements
Summary of CommentResponse
Provincially excluded materials (recyclable materials subject to reuse, recycling or direct use in commercial or industrial applications) should also be excluded under the interprovincial movement provisions.When the EIHWHRMR were developed in 2005, the definitions were harmonized to the extent possible with those in the provinces and territories.  Given the CEPA 1999 definitions will be for international as well as interprovincial movements, international obligations also have to be considered.
Movement documents should be sent to one location satisfying the provincial and federal requirements.With the proposed provisions, interprovincial movements of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials will be tracked. The completion of a movement document will be required. The movement document must also accompany the shipment and be retained at the place of business of all those involved in the specific movement. A copy of the movement document will only have to be provided if provincial or territorial authorities ask for it.
It is unclear how Environment Canada will track interprovincial movements of hazardous waste.
It is unclear if designated EEE for recycling will be excluded from the requirements related to interprovincial movements as they are for movements within OECD countries.Any exclusion for OECD countries would also apply for interprovincial movements.  However, Provincial and territorial requirements will need to be adhered to.
Clarification is needed to determine if hazardous materials to be wholly recycled or used in a manufacturing process will be covered by the interprovincial provisions.Both hazardous waste sent for disposal (D-operations of Schedule 1) and hazardous recyclable material sent for recycling (R operations of Schedule 2) will be captured.
It is unclear how the proposed interprovincial provisions deal with materials that can only be partially recycled.  Are they covered or exempt?Material sent for recycling and considered "hazardous", would be captured as a hazardous recyclable material unless specifically excluded by the definition.
Need clarification that interprovincial movements of non-hazardous waste will not be covered.Interprovincial movements of non-hazardous waste will not be covered.
When the provinces and territories do not require a movement document, there should be no need for one.  A shipment document required by Transport Canada and/or the provinces and territories should be adequate and eliminate redundancy.The movement document was developed in cooperation with the provinces and territories, with the aim that all jurisdictions that require a tracking document, can use the same document. The movement document also meets the requirements of a shipping document under TDGR.
With respect to the proposal to remove the current requirement, in the IMHWR, for movement documents (manifests) to be submitted to provinces or territories, and replace it with a requirement that parties in an interprovincial movement of waste, maintain a copy of the manifest at their places of business for a period of three years after the movement has been completed. The wording should be harmonized with the current wording that is in the EIHWHRMR.Environment Canada’s intent is to harmonize the wording with that of the EIHWHRMR.
Format of Proposed Regulatory Framework
Summary of CommentResponse

A number of stakeholder indicated their support of preference for one of the options proposed for the structure of the proposed regulatory framework:

  • One Regulation, Option 1: 3 submissions;
  • Regulations based on material type, Option 2: 10 submissions;
  • Regulations based on the type of transboundary movement, Option 3: 1 submission.
Environment Canada will take these comments into consideration and will review the options for the structure and format of the proposed regulatory provisions.
Schedules should be placed in guidelines or a Guidance Document, as they can be updated quicker than changes to the Regulations themselves.
Further separation between recyclables and waste is suggested.
Why bring PCB waste export and interprovincial movements into an already complicated regulatory regime?The objective is to ensure consistency of definitions; improve coherence and streamline requirements.
Waste containing PCBs
Summary of CommentResponse
Concerns were expressed that the review will make it easier to import toxic and contaminated waste in Canada.  The import of PCB waste should not be allowed solely for the purpose of corporate profiteering.Under the current regulations, waste containing PCB can be imported to authorized facilities for destruction only.  These conditions will be maintained. All imports and exports of waste containing PCB will be allowed for destruction only.
Will these new regulations contain any specific directions for chemical distributors regarding exemptions for PCB lab standard samples and their movement?With respect to wastes, there are no exemptions from controls for PCBs.  PCB lab standard samples are covered under the PCB Regulations.
Permits of Equivalent Level of Environmental Safety (PELES)
Summary of CommentResponse
The authority of the Minister to issue a PELES should be fully utilized to support recycling projects/programs.  Criteria for obtaining a PELES should be described in a guidance document.The use of PELES and the inclusion of additional guidance material on PELES will be considered when developing guidance material for the proposed regulatory provisions. Current information on PELES can be found in the EIHWHRMR User Guide.
The use of PELES should be encouraged when organisations are innovative and deliver leading edge handling of waste.
International Agreements
Summary of CommentResponse
Canada-US exchanges do not have to strictly follow the Basel Convention and it may be pragmatic to facilitate these transfers.The Regulations are to implement Canada's international obligations under all three agreements (Basel Convention, OECD Decision and Canada-US Agreement).
Comments related to other legislation
Summary of CommentResponse
Guidance tools relating the various state/province and federal rules should be developed.Environment Canada will consider these comments in the development of guidance material.  Specific guidance related other jurisdictions can be obtained directly from these authorities.
Any waste that contains any animal origin material (food or waste products) falls under the mandate of Health of Animals Act and Regulations; any vegetable organic material and soil falls under the Plant Protection Act and associated Regulations. Household and municipal solid waste (MSW) is a high risk commodity for both animal and plant pathogens and pests, MSW is strictly prohibited from importation into Canada, from anywhere except the USA, except as an unavoidable by-product of travel, or trade in other goods or animals. In these cases only, the discharge onto Canadian soil is allowed, but only under very controlled conditions.Environment Canada will consider these comments in developing the proposed regulatory provisions for publication in the Canada Gazette Part I and in the development of guidance material.
When the TDGR removed Class 9 it created a disconnect with the US DOT requirements for example for placarding (UN 3077 or UN 3082).  The regulations and guidance documents should develop protocols to reconcile disconnects.Placarding is a transportation of dangerous goods issue.  Stakeholders should consult Transport Canada.
Export Reduction
Summary of CommentResponse
Canada should reduce exports to a minimum (of end-of-life EEE and all waste and recyclables) to encourage the development of capacity in Canada to manage them.For the purpose of reducing or phasing out the export of hazardous waste or prescribed non-hazardous waste for final disposal, the Minister may require exporters to develop and implement export reduction plans under CEPA 1999.  The content of the plan will continue as currently identified under EIHWHRMR.
Environmentally Sound Management
Summary of CommentResponse
Any attempt to integrate ESM with facility permitting needs to be done in concert with provinces, territories and industry.Any proposal to implement ESM would involve discussions with the provinces and territories, if not broader stakeholders.
Environment Canada is encouraged to further develop ESM and provide direction on connections or correlation with the Sustainable Materials Management developed by OECD and UNEP.

Note:

This document cannot be used as a replacement to the Regulations. It is not intended to restate the law or to constitute a binding statement of how the department will exercise discretion in a particular situation. If there is a conflict between the content of this document and the Regulations, the Regulations prevail. Only the Regulations can be used for interpreting, complying with and enforcing the regulatory requirements.

For all purposes of interpreting and applying the law, users should consult:

  • the Acts as passed by Parliament, which are published in the "Assented to" Acts service, Part III of the Canada Gazette and the annual Statutes of Canada, and
  • the regulations, as registered by the Clerk of the Privy Council and published in Part II of the Canada Gazette.

The above-mentioned publications are available in most public libraries.

Where in doubt in reading these notes and the Regulations, please contact the Waste Reduction and Management Division of Environment Canada at TMB@ec.gc.ca or at 819-938-4555 or 1-844-524-5295.

Date modified: