| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vol. 135, No. 33 — August 18, 2001 Regulations Amending the National Capital Commission Traffic and Property RegulationsStatutory Authority National Capital Act Sponsoring Department Department of Canadian Heritage REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT For the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, see the National Capital Commission Animal Regulations. PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the National Capital Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations. Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Daniel Larabie, Land Manager, National Capital Commission, 202 - 40 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C7, (613) 239-5555 (Telephone), (613) 239-5336 (Facsimile), daniel@ncc-ccn.ca (e-mail). Ottawa, August 1, 2001 RENNIE M. MARCOUX REGULATIONS AMENDING THE NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION TRAFFIC AND PROPERTY REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS 1. Section 15 of the National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations (see footnote 1) is repealed. 2. Section 39 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 39. (1) The following definitions apply in this section. "Commission land" means real property or immovables owned by the Commission or under the control and management of the Commission. (terrain de la Commission) "domestic animal" means an animal of a species of vertebrates, other than fish, that has been domesticated by humans so as to live in a tame condition and depend on humans for survival. (animal domestique) "keeper" means the owner of a domestic animal or the person having charge of the animal, except where the owner or the person is a minor, in which case "keeper" means the father or mother of the minor or another adult responsible for the minor. (responsable) "leased recreational property" means Commission land, of which the Commission is the lessor, that is leased for recreational purposes to a municipality. (terrain récréatif loué) (2) Subject to subsection (3), no person who is the keeper of a domestic animal shall have the animal on Commission land except in accordance with the bylaws of the municipality in which the Commission land is situated. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply to (a) Commission land that is, by virtue of section 2 of the National Capital Commission Animal Regulations, subject to those Regulations; or (b) leased recreational property. COMING INTO FORCE 3. These Regulations come into force on the day on which the National Capital Commission Animal Regulations come into force. [33-1-o] Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) RegulationsStatutory Authority Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 Sponsoring Department Department of the Environment REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Description Purpose of the Regulations The purpose of the Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations (the Regulations) is to reduce releases of tetrachloroethylene, commonly called PERC, to the environment from dry cleaning facilities. These reductions will be attained by requiring newer, more efficient dry cleaning machines, by minimizing spills of this solvent and by managing the collection and disposal of residues and waste water. The reporting provisions in these Regulations apply to persons who import or recycle PERC for any use and to persons who sell PERC to dry cleaners. These provisions are harmonized with the regulations being proposed to manage PERC use in commercial and industrial degreasing applications. Persons with a diverse commercial market will thereby avoid the inconvenience of reporting separately their solvent quantities under two related federal regulations of the Department of the Environment. The Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations are proposed under the authority provided by subsection 93(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999 or the Act). Section 2, paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f), and sections 6 to 9 and 11 of the Regulations will come into force on January 1, 2002. The remaining sections of the Regulations will come into force at the date of their registration by the Clerk of the Privy Council. Background PERC was included in the list of 44 substances published as the first Priority Substances List (PSL1) in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 11, 1989, under the auspices of CEPA 1988. These substances were given priority by the Departments of the Environment and of Health for assessing whether they are "toxic or capable of becoming toxic" according to the definition specified in section 11 of the Act. On February 5, 1994, a synopsis of the results of the PERC assessment as a toxic substance under paragraph 11(a) of CEPA 1988 was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. In early 1994, Environment Canada and Health Canada established a new framework for stakeholder consultations that was to be followed in determining risk management options for the substances assessed as toxic in the PSL1. This process, referred to as the Strategic Options Process (SOP), was facilitated through the establishment of issue tables. For PERC, two such issue tables were established. One addressed the use and environmental releases of this solvent in the dry cleaning sector. A second issue table addressed the solvent's use in industrial and commercial degreasing applications. The issue table for the dry cleaning sector held its first consultation meeting in December 1994 and concluded its work in November 1995. The Strategic Options Report (SOR) on the stakeholder consultations titled Tetrachloroethylene in the Dry Cleaning Sector (see footnote 2) was published in February 1996, provides the basis for the proposed Regulations. Under the federal government's Toxic Substances Management Policy (TSMP), PERC is a Track 2 substance. The policy sets forth a management goal to minimize environmental and health risks of Track 2 toxic substances, by reducing exposure to, and/or their release to the extent possible throughout the substance's life cycle. Although the policy was being drafted during the time when the multistakeholder consultations on PERC were being conducted, the recommendations that were ultimately presented on the management of PERC in the SOR, are consistent with the goals of the TSMP, which was announced in June 1995. Overview of the Canadian Dry Cleaning Sector in 1998 In 1998, the number of Canadian facilities offering dry cleaning services was estimated at about 2 800. These facilities accounted for approximately 3 200 machines using PERC solvent to clean garments and other fabric articles. In the same year, the Canadian dry cleaning sector generated revenue in the order of $600 million. (see footnote 3) This industry was composed of relatively small businesses, as about 70 percent of dry cleaners had revenues of less than $200,000. The sector employed close to 30 000 workers. (see footnote 4) About 48 percent of the operating costs were allocated to salaries, which indicates a labor-intensive sector, close to 15 percent was spent for occupancy expenses and PERC solvent along with other expenses accounted for about 20 percent. The capital value of PERC dry cleaning equipment was estimated at approximately $50 million. An estimated 2 100 tonnes of PERC were used for dry cleaning while the total Canadian imports were around 7 300 tonnes. The total quantity of PERC imported to Canada between 1994 and 1998 decreased by about 41 percent, with a major portion of the reduction attributable to dry cleaning use (as confirmed by PERC sellers). All new, non-recycled PERC in Canadian commerce has been imported since 1992 when the last Canadian manufacturing plant was closed. Environmental Objective The scientific assessment of the environmental toxicity of PERC concluded that atmospheric concentrations may be sufficient to cause adverse effects on some terrestrial plants, notably trees. Furthermore, contamination of groundwater and groundwater-recharged surface water in Canada with PERC could be significant, particularly in areas where there has been inappropriate disposal of this substance from dry cleaning facilities in landfills. Accordingly, the objective of these proposed Regulations is to eliminate this harm to the environment. The Departments of Health and of the Environment will also be proposing regulations for the management of PERC used in commercial and industrial degreasing applications, the second most significant source of releases to the environment. A preliminary analysis by Environment Canada determined that environmental releases from the dry cleaning sector, if reduced in the range 60 percent to 90 percent from 1994 levels, would provide a margin of safety in ambient air concentrations sufficient to avoid environmental harm. The control measures contained in the Regulations, in combination with well maintained and operated dry cleaning machines, are projected to reduce PERC use by 71 percent from about 5 500 tonnes in 1994 to about 1 600 tonnes. This reduction was determined on the basis of dry cleaners achieving a sector average solvent usage of 20 kg of PERC, or less, per 1 000 kg of clothes cleaned. By applying this solvent consumption to the annual quantity of articles cleaned, estimated to be between 80 000 and 85 000 tonnes, yielded the 1 600 tonnes use target considered to be achievable. The 1994 data on the dry cleaning sector were updated through a survey of the industry, which found that PERC use had decreased to about 2 100 tonnes in 1998. This reduction, in the absence of government regulations, is attributed to several factors, which are discussed later in this report in the section "Strategic Options Report Recommendations." Although the overall reduction achieved to date is substantial, the Regulations will further reduce environmental releases among the non-compliant facilities, improve residue management, minimize the releases of PERC in waste waters discharged to municipal sewers and ensure that new machines meet tight performance standards. Alternatives Environment Canada, as part of the SOP consultations, conducted socio-economic analyses on four broad risk management options, including the option reflected by the six key recommendations in the Strategic Options Report (SOR). The analysis resulted in the following ranking of the options in decreasing order of net economic benefits. A. An economic instrument in the form of a levy on PERC sold for dry cleaning use, which would be designed to subsidize the costs of operator training, facility compliance inspections by Government, residue disposal, and to provide a rebate of 20 percent towards new equipment purchases. B. Technology-based regulations and mandatory operator environmental training combined with a levy on PERC to cover the costs of operator training, residue disposal and facility compliance inspections. This option formed the basis of the six key recommendations contained in the SOR of stakeholder consultations adopted with broad consensus among the issue table members. C. Staged declining quotas on PERC imports. D. Technology regulations with mandatory operator training. Net benefits in the economic analysis of these options were calculated by deriving the monetary valuation of the environmental benefits and subtracting the total costs to dry cleaners and to Government of implementing the respective options. Option A introduced the concept of an economic instrument that would be innovative in its application of a levy on a toxic commercial chemical to achieve an environmental objective. The levy would be designed to increase the price of the good to a level that would force conservation and efficiencies to the point where the environmental objective is achieved. The levy, which is discussed in the following section (Strategic Options Report Recommendations), posed basic constraints that precluded this option from further consideration. Option C, although easy for Government to administer, was strongly opposed by the PERC importers and sellers on the grounds that a quota would be contrary to the rules of the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Therefore, this option was ruled out. Option D, although substantially similar to Option B, was not supported by the dry cleaning industry representatives who felt that a PERC levy was necessary, as it would provide a source of funds to establish an industry-managed program of operator training and certification. This consideration resulted in the issue table recommending Option B and the six key recommendations of the SOR that reflected a combination of improving technology, tightening residue management and a levy as described below. Strategic Options Report Recommendations 1. First generation machines (see footnote 5) should be eliminated from service and second generation machines (see footnote 6) should be eliminated or retro-fitted to the performance of third generation machines. (see footnote 7) 2. New PERC dry cleaning machines installed after the date of the promulgation of the regulation should be capable of achieving a minimum solvent consumption design rating of 10 kg of PERC per 1 000 kg of clothes cleaned. 3. Distributors who sell PERC to dry cleaners should be mandated the responsibility to collect PERC-contaminated wastes from dry cleaners. 4. A levy on PERC sold for dry cleaning use should be assessed to offset the costs associated with operator training, certification, compliance monitoring, facility inspections, enforcement, and administration. 5. All dry cleaners should have personnel trained and certified in the proper handling of PERC, equipment operation and maintenance practices to minimize environmental releases. 6. Progress in achieving PERC reductions should be monitored annually through voluntary reporting by the foreign producers of the quantities of solvent imported into Canada and by the domestic recycling firms of the solvent recovered from residues. The first and second recommendations reflect a common sense approach to minimizing environmental releases of solvent. At the same time new, more efficient dry cleaning machines, which are widely available in Canada from global manufacturers, reduce PERC use and generate less hazardous residues. As a consequence, the volumes of solvent and residue in transport and the associated hazard of accidental spills would be reduced. Furthermore, the recommendations would improve the workplace environment due to lower evaporative solvent losses from the new technology dry cleaning machines, from in-plant spills, and from solvent, waste water and residue storage containers. The SOR recommendation on the levy on PERC sold to dry cleaners was proposed on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis that showed such a measure would help to attain the environmental objective and provide a source of revenue that offset operator environmental training, operator certification and government costs associated with the administration and monitoring compliance with the proposed regulation. The levy, depending on the amount, would of itself increase the price of the solvent thereby encouraging conservation. Another advantage of the levy would be in providing an incentive to introduce alternative cleaning technologies to PERC solvent. This recommendation has been discussed by Environment Canada with officials of the Department of Finance since such an economic instrument is not possible under the legislative authority of CEPA 1988 or CEPA 1999. The conclusion reached from these discussions was that the levy would need to be applied beyond the dry cleaning and degreasing sectors, as it would introduce potential administration complexities and costs for the Government, as well as inadvertently providing contraband opportunities within the PERC market if not all segments of the market were taxed. Therefore, the levy is not being applied at this time. The SOR recommended annual reporting of PERC imports and recycled PERC through the voluntary commitments of companies. Although encouraging from the initial response by the industry, Environment Canada reconsidered this recommendation. Environment Canada believes that voluntary reporting would be unreliable over the long-term. It is essential for Government to be able to track the quantities of PERC imported, used and recycled, to measure progress in its regulatory actions and to assess future use patterns. Non-complying reporters under a voluntary arrangement could not be compelled to provide their information, which would seriously compromise the Department's responsibility for the environmental goals of these Regulations. Therefore, the voluntary approach is not a viable option. The evaluation of these recommendations has resulted in the proposed Regulations. Benefits and Costs Impact of the Regulations on Emissions of PERC To estimate the impact of the Regulations on solvent use, emissions and recycling, a model (see footnote 8) was developed to project PERC dry cleaning machine stocks and solvent flows for the 12-year period from 1998 to 2010. The dry cleaning machine stocks in place in 1998 were used as the baseline. Projections were made of the machine stocks in future years under two scenarios. One scenario assumed no controls (i.e., no Regulations) and the second scenario assumed the Regulations coming into force. PERC Use, Emissions and Recycling Annual PERC use in the dry cleaning sector was estimated by province and by machine generation from 1998 to 2010 for both the control and the no control scenarios. The total PERC use for the period 1998-2010 was projected at 26 000 and 30 300 tonnes respectively for the control and no control scenarios. Total PERC released to the atmosphere can be derived by subtracting from the total use, the estimate of solvent contained in residues and waste water. Residues associated with the dry cleaning process include any solid, liquid or sludge waste other than waste water. The total quantities of PERC recovered and recycled from residues and waste water during this 12-year period were estimated at 2 400 and 2 100 tonnes respectively in the control and no control scenarios. Consequently, the PERC emissions were estimated at 23 600 and 28 200 tonnes, respectively. At the end of the analysis period, the Regulations would achieve a 14 percent reduction in PERC use, 2 percent in recycling and a 16 percent reduction in emissions. Benefits Benefits to be achieved through emission reductions resulting from the Regulations were valued using a contingent valuation method. Typically, in a contingent valuation approach, a survey of consumers who are asked their preferences about the provision of a public good, such as environmental protection, is conducted. Consumers are asked to indicate if they are willing to pay, and how much they would be willing to pay, if a hypothetical market existed. They are then asked to value the increase or decrease in the quantity of the public good (environmental quality) that would be provided through that market. A survey (see footnote 9) conducted for Environment Canada in 1995 found that 77 percent of households reported using dry cleaning services. The average amount that respondents would be willing to pay for eliminating environmental harm due to PERC emissions differed depending on whether or not the household had used dry cleaning services, the amount being lower for non-users. The average amounts that the respondents in each group were willing to pay were as follows: — $8.84 per year (1999$) among households that used dry cleaning services, and — $5.49 per year (1999$) among households that reported not using dry cleaning services. The average value of the amount consumers are willing to pay when both consumer groups are taken into account is derived from the following formula:
The average willingness to pay amount has to be prorated to the percentage (16 percent) reduction in PERC use attributable to the Regulations. To this are applied the Statistics Canada data on the number of households in Canada and a growth rate of 1.5 percent annually, to project the total monetary value that consumers would place on the environmental benefits. A social discount rate of 5 percent is applied to obtain the present value of the benefits accruing from 1998 to 2010. The total present value of benefits is estimated at about $141 million in 1999 dollars. The sensitivity of the estimates to the discount rate was checked against discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. The total present value of benefits from applying these rates would be $157 million and $127 million, respectively. Costs The capital and operating cost impacts from the Regulations will affect mainly the private sector which, in this case, includes dry cleaners and PERC sellers. Government will incur costs associated with monitoring compliance and enforcing the Regulations. Costs to the Industry The estimates of the cost impacts on industry are determined as the incremental costs to meet the provisions in the Regulations which are summarized as follows: — Capital equipment replacement or retrofit costs of dry cleaning machines to meet the more stringent technology standards. — Ongoing operational costs which translate into savings in PERC use associated with the replaced or retrofitted equipment; — Costs for treatment and disposal of waste water; and — Product stewardship costs for additional tracking, collecting, transporting and disposal of residues. Other costs are associated with a ban on self-service machines and the use of PERC in spotting agents, the new reporting requirements and specific equipment costs such as closed direct-coupled solvent-delivery systems. Capital Costs Attributable to the Regulations In the cost model, the no controls scenario and the scenario with controls were compared. In the controls scenario, it was assumed all first and second generation machines would be replaced. Although the Regulations allow second generation machines to be upgraded, their age, solvent inefficiency and the costs to operate them, even after upgrading, would make the purchase of third generation or newer machines more economical. It was assumed that the Regulations would be promulgated on January 1, 2000, (see footnote 10) and the new machine solvent consumption requirements would be effective on July 1, 2000. Since most new machine sales are currently of third generation machines (and PERC containment is an industry standard), in the initial year of the Regulations, 2000, 85 percent of the replacements would be third generation machines and 15 percent would be newer technology machines. In each of the following years, all replacements would have to be newer technology machines to meet the solvent consumption requirement for new machines. In the no controls scenario, third generation machines would continue to be sold through to 2010. It is assumed, however, that their market share would decline 5 percent per year as newer technology machines become the market standard. A small number of first and second generation machines would continue being used. The cost estimates shown in the table below represent the total undiscounted present value of the incremental capital costs in machine replacements attributed to the Regulations over and above the machine replacements that would have occurred in the absence of regulatory action over the period 1998-2010. All costs include installation and delivery charges. Estimated Total Cumulative Capital Cost for Machine Replacements, 1998-2010 (in Million $, Undiscounted)
(a) Source: ARC Applied Research Consultants (1999). (b) Note: Sum of provinces may differ from total for Canada due to rounding. The total cumulative capital cost over the period 1998 to 2010 is estimated at $187.3 million (undiscounted) in 1999 dollars. Operating Costs Attributable to the Regulations Switching from the older first and second generation machines to newer technology would generate operational cost savings for dry cleaning plants. The cost savings arise mainly from the lower PERC use. Over the period 1998-2010, the total savings in operating costs attributable to the Regulations are estimated at $23.2 million (undiscounted) in 1999 dollars. Under the no controls scenario, these savings are deferred until such time as dry cleaning machines are replaced. Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Costs The Regulations require dry cleaning facilities to treat waste water contaminated with PERC by waste water treatment system before discharging to sewer, or have this waste water disposed at a waste management facility. Environment Canada data indicate that almost all dry cleaners currently discharge waste water to building sewer systems that connect to public sewers. A reasonable assumption, from available survey data, is that virtually no facilities currently treat their waste water to the level required by the Regulations. Therefore, the full costs of treating waste water will be attributable to the Regulations. The waste water disposal cost was estimated by applying the costs typically charged by waste management firms for the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. Waste management firms charge dry cleaners around 30 to 35 cents per litre of waste water. With the average plant generating an estimated 500 litres of waste water per year, the annual cost per plant for meeting the waste water treatment requirement is $162.50 (i.e. $0.325 × 500). Multiplying this annual cost by the total number of plants during the period 1998-2010, yields the total cost to industry estimated at $5.9 million (undiscounted) in 1999 dollars. Costs for the Collection and Management of Residues The Regulations require sellers of PERC to take stewardship responsibility for collecting and transporting all residues generated at the dry cleaning facilities that they sell to. The residues must be disposed at a waste management facility. This requirement allows solvent sellers the flexibility to either provide the residue collection, transport and management service directly, or contract with a third party. The incremental cost to industry to implement life cycle stewardship for PERC is based on the estimated 30 percent of dry cleaners that are currently not having their residues picked up and disposed by waste management firms. These residues include spent disposable filters, spent solvent, sludge from the still, and other solvent contaminated solids and liquids other than waste water. Waste management firms charge, on average, $20.90 per filter and $275 per drum of sludge to dispose of these residues. In the controls scenario, only third generation and newer technology machines would be in use. A third generation machine typically has nine disposable filters that are replaced every two months (54 filters per year). Newer technology machines typically do not use disposable filters. The average plant produces two drums of sludge per year. The increased cost of collecting and disposing residues is estimated at $10 million (undiscounted) in 1999 dollars, over the period 1998 to 2010. Costs of Special Solvent-delivery Systems The Regulations will require closed direct-coupled solvent-delivery systems. These systems avoid the spills and evaporative losses associated with systems currently in predominant use. However, cleaners are required to pay for installing the direct-coupled fittings to their machines. The costs (parts and labour) for these add-on components is estimated from $150 to $350 per dry cleaning machine. An average cost of $225 was assumed to derive the total cost impact on the industry, estimated at $0.94 million (undiscounted) over the period 1998-2010. Costs to the Government Government will incur costs associated with informing the regulated community and inspecting and enforcing the provisions in the proposed Regulations. For the first ten years following the coming into force of the Regulations, the compliance monitoring will be carried out over three time cycles of three, four and three years. The undiscounted value of salaries and operating costs associated with compliance monitoring during the first three-year cycle is estimated at about $236,000 annually. The second cycle will span four years. The undiscounted value of salaries and operating costs to Government for this period of compliance monitoring is estimated at about $201,000 annually. For the three years of the third cycle, the undiscounted value of salaries and operating costs for this period of compliance monitoring is estimated at about $98,000 annually. The total undiscounted cost to Government is estimated at $1.9 million of 1999 dollars over the period 1998 to 2010. All estimates incorporate contingency costs incurred in possible future investigations of non-compliance incidents and possible legal actions. Other Non-quantified Costs There are some aspects of the Regulations that have no costs associated with them. For instance, the prohibition of PERC in spotting agents is unlikely to generate any additional costs since alternative spotting solutions exist. Alternative spotting formulations are widely used by cleaners presently, are as effective or more effective than PERC-based spotting agents, and do not cost more than spotting agents containing PERC. Another regulatory provision that is not expected to incur any additional costs is the record-keeping requirement for PERC sellers, importers and recycling firms as these firms already maintain such records on their operations. Finally, although self-serviced PERC dry cleaning machines are prohibited and will be forced to either exit the market or become owner-operated, the few facilities involved will have a negligible incremental cost to society. There are a small number of these facilities, estimated at 35 in 1994. The loss of business in this segment of the industry and associated profits will shift to other dry cleaning plants. Total Discounted Present Value of Costs Attributable to the Regulations The preceding component costs provided the input to a model that determined the present value of all incremental costs associated with the Regulations, summarized in the table below. Since, according to the model assumption the Regulations would not be effective until 2000, the incremental costs would not be incurred in 1998 and 1999. Estimated Incremental Capital and Operating Costs 2000-2010 (in Millions of 1999 Dollars)
For the period 1998 to 2010, the total present value of all costs is $140.4 million in 1999 dollars, using a social discount rate of 5 percent. The sensitivity of the estimates to the discount rate was determined by calculating the costs with discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. A discount rate of 3 percent would result in a total present value of all costs at $155.4 million while at a 7 percent discount rate the present value would be $127.6 million. Net Present Value of Benefits of the Proposed Regulations The cost and benefit impacts presented in the preceding sections are summarized in the table below. The difference between the present value of benefits and present value of costs is the net present value of benefits when the Regulations are implemented. Net Present Value of Benefits (discounted millions, 2000-2010)
Other Impacts Control measures may also have non-allocative impacts. Impacts of this kind could include burdens on particular groups in society, for example, by region or by income category. In addition, there can be impacts on competitiveness and trade or in terms of inflation and employment. Overall, the impacts in this regard from the Regulations are expected to be minimal. Because the one domestic manufacturer of dry cleaning machines exited the market in recent years, the regulatory requirements have no impact on Canadian competitiveness in this manufacturing sector. Dry cleaning services are consumed in very localized markets and, therefore, a uniformity in environmental standards will place businesses in a more equitable setting in this regard. Dry cleaners with old technology plants located in small regional markets may find the new investment required to be beyond their financial ability. These small businesses may exit the market with an attendant loss of employment while some plants may convert to store front outlets and send their articles for cleaning to other plants. In larger, high density markets, closures of small plants are more likely to result in their converting to store front outlets with the consequent transfer of business and employment to plants that can afford to upgrade their equipment or to plants that could expand to become larger and more efficient. Consultation These Regulations are the result of extensive formal consultations that began in December 1994 and ended in November 1995. Stakeholders were invited from national and regional dry cleaning associations, provinces, territories, equipment suppliers, foreign solvent producers, solvent sellers, solvent importers, waste management firms, environmental non-government organizations, Industry Canada, and Human Resources Development Canada. Health Canada was an integral partner with Environment Canada who led the issue table consultations. Early in the consultations, Environment Canada presented to the participants a wide range of PERC management options which were qualitatively assessed with regard to their feasibility. From these options, four were retained for further analysis and are described in the SOR of stakeholders consultations. These Regulations are the outcome of the broad consensus reached among stakeholders who formulated the final recommendations that were announced by the Minister of the Environment in February 1997. The Toxics Caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network (CEN) that represented the environmental non-government organizations, while accepting the SOR recommendations, disagrees with "control technology" as a strategy adopted by the Government in managing PERC and similar toxic commercial chemicals. The representative for the CEN maintains that the course of action proposed in the SOR recommendations sends the wrong signal to dry cleaners by allowing PERC use to continue, albeit with advanced technology. The environmental non-government organizations believe that wet cleaning can achieve 85 percent market penetration based on the technical feasibility of this technology, as shown by numerous demonstration projects at that time. On the other hand, the industry representatives, view a 30 percent market penetration by wet cleaning as a more realistic assessment, and think that free market forces should determine the extent of any change. In support of their preference to phase out chlorinated organic compounds like PERC, the environmental non-government organizations favour an import quota on PERC to restrict the quantity of solvent available for dry cleaning use. This, it is argued, would force a significant switch to alternate, non-PERC cleaning that could include wet cleaning processes or hydrocarbon solvent cleaning processes. The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. — the organization representing the interests of the main PERC manufacturers in the United States — strongly opposes import quotas for several reasons. Their main argument is import quotas conflict with rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization agreements. Environment Canada believes that the establishment of quotas on imports only of PERC could be found to be inconsistent with these international agreements. The Canadian Fabricare Association and regional dry cleaning associations oppose the measure that mandates the responsibility on distributors/sellers of PERC to collect residues from dry cleaners. Their opposition is based on the grounds that dry cleaners, as residue generators, have the responsibility of disposing their own residues. Further, they are concerned over a potential residue collection monopoly being created among distributors resulting in unfair pricing practices. Representatives from solvent recycling firms and distributors, however, support the measure because fewer dry cleaners would circumvent proper disposal practices, minimize the losses of PERC to the environment, and increase recycled PERC availability and use. Environment Canada also considers the product stewardship role of solvent sellers to be particularly suitable for managing toxic commercial chemicals, such as PERC, through their life cycle. The Korean Dry Cleaners Association opposes the technology-based strategy of the SOR recommendations, preferring instead to have the Government tax PERC to generate revenue that should be returned by Government to help dry cleaners replace their old dry cleaning machines. Other industry representatives, however, maintain that such an approach is unfair to the many businesses that already invested in keeping their plants modern and efficient prior to such a levy being implemented and who would, therefore, be helping to underwrite the investments of others. Following the publication of the SOR, Environment Canada has continued to inform and consult with stakeholders in various settings. In May 1998, the members of the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee under CEPA 1988 were consulted on the first draft text of these proposed Regulations. In December 1999, the final draft text of these Regulations was transmitted to the members of the new National Advisory Committee formed under CEPA 1999. These proposed Regulations are broadly supported by both committees. Nine information sessions have been held with regional dry cleaning associations on the draft discussion papers on the proposed CEPA Regulations. The venues included Toronto in 1996 and 1999, Vancouver in 1997 and 1999, Victoria in 1997, Red Deer in 1998 and 1999, and Halifax and Montreal in 1999. In September 1998, a fact sheet on the proposed Regulations was mailed out to all dry cleaners that were listed in Canadian telephone directories. Inquiries from individual dry cleaners, estimated to number over 100 since 1996, have been received and information was provided on the Government's regulatory development progress and the consequences that the Regulations may have on the purchase, sale or operation of their businesses. The trade magazine, Fabricare Canada, has published several articles with information about the federal government's proposed regulatory action. Over 4 000 dry cleaners, sellers and associated businesses subscribe to this free magazine. During both the issue table consultations and the subsequent information and consultation sessions on the regulatory discussion paper, stakeholders broadly supported the measures to be included in the proposed CEPA 1999 Regulations. The proposed regulatory provisions reflect, and are consistent with, the recommendations contained in the Strategic Options Report. Stakeholders' views had not varied between the time that Environment Canada consulted on the regulatory text and the earlier issue table consultations. Compliance and Enforcement Since these Regulations are promulgated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Compliance and Enforcement Policy implemented under the Act will be applied by CEPA enforcement officers. The policy outlines measures designed to promote compliance, including education, information, promoting of technology development and consultation on the development of regulations. When verifying compliance with these Regulations, CEPA enforcement officers will abide by the Compliance and Enforcement Policy, which also sets out the range of possible responses to violations: warnings, directions and environmental protection compliance orders issued by enforcement officers, 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 offense. In addition, the policy explains when Environment Canada will resort to civil suits by the Crown for costs recovery. If, as a result of an inspection or an investigation or following the report of a suspected violation, a CEPA enforcement officer confirms that a violation has been committed, the enforcement officer will select the appropriate response, based on the following criteria: — 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 and 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 officials, and evidence of corrective action already taken. — Consistency: enforcement officers will consider how similar situations have been handled in determining the measures to be taken to enforce the Act. Contacts Ed Wituschek, Air and Toxics Control Section, Commercial Chemicals Division, Environmental Protection Branch, Pacific and Yukon Region, Department of the Environment, 224 West Esplanade, North Vancouver, British Columbia V7M 3H7, (604) 666-2815 (Telephone), (604) 666-6800 (Facsimile), ed.wituschek@ ec.gc.ca (Electronic mail); or Arthur Sheffield, Regulatory and Economic Analysis Branch, Policy and Communications, Department of the Environment, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3, (819) 953-1172 (Telephone), (819) 997-2769 (Facsimile), arthur. sheffield@ec.gc.ca (Electronic mail). PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 332(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote a), that the Governor in Council proposes, pursuant to subsection 93(1) of that Act, to make the annexed Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations. Any person may, within 60 days after the publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment comments with respect to the proposed Regulations or a notice of objection requesting that a board of review be established under section 333 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote b) and stating the reasons for the objection. All comments and notices must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the Director, National Office of Pollution Prevention, Toxics Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3. A person who provides information to the Minister may submit with the information a request for confidentiality under section 313 of that Act. Ottawa, August 1, 2001 RENNIE M. MARCOUX TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (USE IN DRY CLEANING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS INTERPRETATION 1. The definitions in this section apply in these Regulations. "refrigerated condenser" means a totally closed solvent vapour recovery system that uses mechanical refrigeration to cool the solvent vapour to a liquid for re-use in a dry-cleaning machine. (condenseur réfrigéré) "residue" means any solid, liquid or sludge waste, other than waste water, that is generated from dry cleaning. (résidus) "solvent" means tetrachloroethylene. (solvant) "solvent consumption" means the quantity of solvent that is necessary to clean the nominal capacity of a dry-cleaning machine, as measured in accordance with the procedures outlined in the document entitled Closed-circuit dry-cleaning machines — Defining and checking of machine characteristics, Reference No. ISO 8232: 1988 (E), published by the International Organization for Standardization, as amended from time to time. (consommation de solvant) "spotting agent" means a substance or mixture of substances that is applied directly to a stain for its removal from an article. (agent détachant) "tetrachloroethylene" means the substance specified in item 44 of the Toxic Substances List in Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which is also known as perchloroethylene, that has the chemical formula C2Cl4 and bears the American Chemical Society's Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number 127-18-4. (tétrachloroéthylène) "waste management facility" means a facility that is permitted under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the facility is located to handle, recycle or otherwise dispose of contaminated wastes, including solvent, residue and waste water. (installation de gestion de déchets) "waste water" means waste water generated from a dry-cleaning machine that contains any concentration of solvent resulting from the dry-cleaning process. (eaux résiduaires) PART 1 SOLVENT USED IN DRY CLEANING Prohibitions 2. No person shall use a spotting agent that contains solvent for commercial dry-cleaning purposes. 3. No person shall use solvent for dry cleaning unless all of the solvent, waste water and residue is stored in closed containers. 4. No person shall sell solvent to the owner or operator of a dry-cleaning machine or use solvent for dry cleaning unless the dry-cleaning machine (a) uses the same single drum for the washing, extraction, drying and aeration cycles; (b) has an integral refrigerated condenser that removes solvent vapour in the recirculated air from the drum of the machine; (c) prevents solvent vapour in the drum from being vented directly or indirectly into the atmosphere during the washing, extraction, drying and aeration cycles; (d) has an integral solvent-water separator that recovers solvent from waste water; (e) has a manufacturer's design rating for solvent consumption equal to or less than 10 kg or 6.2 L of solvent per 1000 kg of clothing cleaned or, alternatively, was installed or in use prior to or on January 1, 2002; and (f) is operated within a facility that is equipped with
5. Despite section 4, no person shall use solvent in a self-service dry-cleaning machine. Waste Water and Residue Disposal Requirements 6. (1) No person who uses solvent for dry cleaning shall dispose of waste water unless (a) the waste water is transported to a waste management facility for disposal; or (b) the waste water is first treated by the dry-cleaning machine's integral solvent-water separator and a waste water treatment system that shall contain the following equipment,
(2) If a monitor-alarm shuts down the waste water treatment system of a dry-cleaning machine, the owner or operator of the machine shall replace both carbon filters before continuing to use the machine in the following manner (a) replacing the initial and second carbon filters with new carbon filters; or (b) replacing the initial carbon filter with the used second carbon filter, and installing a new second filter. (3) A person who sells solvent to the owner or operator of a dry-cleaning machine that does not have a waste water treatment system shall collect and transport all waste water generated by the dry-cleaning machine to a waste management facility no less than once every six months after the day of sale. 7. (1) No person shall dispose of residue unless the disposal occurs at a waste management facility. (2) A person who sells solvent to an owner or operator of a dry-cleaning machine shall collect and transport all residue generated by that machine to a waste management facility no less than once every six months after the day of sale. 8. (1) If a person who sells solvent fails to comply with subsection 6(3) or 7(2), then the owner or operator of the dry-cleaning machine shall transport the waste water or residue to a waste management facility for disposal no later than two months after the day that the collection should have occurred under that subsection. (2) If a person imports solvent for his or her own use in dry cleaning, then that person shall transport all residue or waste water generated by the related dry-cleaning activity to a waste management facility for disposal, no less than once every six months after the day that the solvent was imported. Transfer and Transport Requirements 9. No person shall transport solvent to a facility where a dry- cleaning machine is used or transfer solvent into a dry-cleaning machine, storage tank or other container at that facility unless a closed direct-coupled solvent-delivery system is used during the solvent transfer process that prevents the escape of liquid or vapour. PART 2 SOLVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 10. A person who imports solvent into Canada or recycles solvent for any use in Canada shall (a) complete a report in the form set out in Schedule 1 and submit it to the Minister no later than 120 days after the end of each calendar year in which the importation or recycling occurs; and (b) keep books, records and supporting documentation containing the information referred to in Schedule 1. 11. A person who sells solvent to the owner or operator of a dry-cleaning machine shall (a) complete a report in the form set out in Schedule 2 and submit it to the Minister no later than 120 days after the end of each calendar year in which solvent is sold; and (b) keep written books, records and supporting documentation containing the information referred to in Schedule 3. 12. A person who is required to maintain books, records and supporting documentation, or to submit a report under these Regulations shall keep the books, records, supporting documentation and a copy of the report at the person's main place of business in Canada, or at the main place of business in Canada of a representative of that person, for a period of five years after the day on which they are made. COMING INTO FORCE 13. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered. (2) Section 2, paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f), and sections 6 to 9 and 11 come into force on January 1, 2002.
I, (Name) _____________________________________ , declare that the information provided in this report is correct. _____________________________ _____________________________ Information respecting the total quantity of tetrachloroethylene sold and the total quantity of residue and waste water collected and transferred during a calendar year: Reporting Year: Total Quantity (kilograms) Virgin Tetrachloroethylene Sold to Dry-Cleaning Facilities: Total Quantity (kilograms) Recycled or Reclaimed Tetrachloroethylene Sold to Dry-Cleaning Facilities: Total Quantity (kilograms) of Residue Collected from Dry-Cleaning Facilities:____________________________________(A) Total Quantity (kilograms) of Residue Transferred to Waste Management Facilities:___________________________________(B) If (A) above does not equal (B) above, provide the reason for the discrepancy below or on a separate attachment: Total Quantity (kilograms) of Waste Water Collected from Dry-Cleaning Facilities:_________________________________________(C) Total Quantity (kilograms) of Waste Water Transferred to Waste Management Facilities:_________________________________________(D) If (C) above does not equal (D) above, provide the reason for the discrepancy below or on a separate attachment: Information respecting the quantity of tetrachloroethylene sold to individual dry-cleaning facilities and the quantity of residue and waste water collected during a calendar year from individual dry-cleaning facilities: Reporting Year: ______________________________________ Legend: A = quantity (kilograms) of virgin tetrachloroethylene sold B = quantity (kilograms) of recycled or reclaimed tetrachloroethylene sold C = quantity (kilograms) of residue collected D = quantity (kilograms) of waste water collected
SCHEDULE 3 INFORMATION RELATED TO THE SALE OF TETRACHLOROETHYLENE FOR DRY CLEANING 1. The name, address and postal code of each owner or operator of a dry-cleaning facility to whom virgin tetrachloroethylene is sold and the quantity in kilograms of virgin tetrachloroethylene sold to each facility 2. The name, address and postal code of each owner or operator of a dry-cleaning facility to whom recycled or reclaimed tetrachloroethylene is sold and the quantity in kilograms of recycled or reclaimed tetrachloroethylene sold to each facility 3. The name, address and postal code of each owner or operator of a dry-cleaning facility from whom residue is collected and the quantity in kilograms of the residue collected from each facility 4. The name, address and postal code of each owner or operator of a dry-cleaning facility from whom waste water is collected and the quantity in kilograms of the waste water collected from each facility 5. The name and address of each waste management facility to which residue and waste water are transferred and the quantity in kilograms of residue and waste water transferred from each dry-cleaning facility to the waste management facility [33-1-o] C.R.C., c. 1044 This report is available from Environment Canada or can be downloaded from: http://www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/ep/dryclean/perc.html. Source: Statistics Canada Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 9721 (includes power laundries). Source: Statistics Canada SIC 972 (not all firms are dry cleaning operations). A first generation machine is a dry cleaning machine commonly referred to as a transfer machine in which separate equipment is used for the washing and drying of articles. Solvent vapour from the aerating, or deodorising, phase of the drying cycle is vented directly or indirectly into the atmosphere. A second generation machine is a dry cleaning machine commonly referred to as a dry-to-dry vented machine in which a single machine is used for the washing and drying of articles and where solvent vapour from the aerating, or deodorising, phase of the drying cycle is vented directly or indirectly into the atmosphere. A third generation machine is a closed-circuit dry cleaning machine, also referred to as a dry-to-dry closed machine, in which a single machine is used for the washing and drying of articles, and has a refrigerated condenser to capture solvent vapour from the aerating, or deodorizing, phase of the drying cycle. Based on ARC Applied Research Consultants, 1999 report entitled "Cost Benefit Assessment of the Proposed Regulation Managing the Use of Tetrachloroethylene (PERC) in the Canadian Dry Cleaning Sector and Update of the Levy/Subsidy Option and Socio-Economic Data." This report is available from Environment Canada upon request. Study by ARC Applied Research Consultants entitled, "Contingent Valuation of Environmental Effects Associated with Dry Cleaning," 1995. Available from Environment Canada upon request. It should be noted that these hypothetical implementation dates were chosen for the analysis conducted in July 1999. These assumptions were needed to develop the cost model. S.C. 1999, c. 33 S.C. 1999, c. 33 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTICE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This
is a report on importation of tetrachloroethylene.