Canada Gazette

The purpose of the proposed Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing and Reverse Etching Regulations (the proposed Regulations) is to protect the environment and the health of Canadians by reducing air emissions of hexavalent chromium compounds (HVC) from facilities using chromic acid in their chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching operations. For ease of reference, these facilities will be described in this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement as "user" or "users."

HVC has been known to cause cancer in humans and to have significant negative effects on the environment. The carcinogenicity of HVC has been investigated in a wide range of occupationally exposed populations. In addition to the documented carcinogenicity of HVC in occupationally exposed populations, a proportion of the general populace is also highly sensitive to the dermatological effects of HVC. A Health Canada study concludes that the knowledge of the toxic effects of HVC is derived almost entirely from occupational exposures, with the main effects being observed on the skin and respiratory tract. (see footnote 1)

Environment Canada's assessment report (see footnote 2) also found that releases of chromium in large quantities (84 tonnes to the atmosphere, more than 27 tonnes to water, and more than 5 000 tonnes to land), from various anthropogenic sources in Canada, have increased concentrations of chromium reported in Canadian air, water, soils and sediments. The concentration of HVC in water and soil were found in some locations to be much higher than the effects thresholds estimated to harm the most sensitive aquatic species, plants and microbial communities. There is also believed to be some chance of adverse health effects at any level of exposure from HVC, which has been classified as carcinogenic to humans. HVC was declared toxic to the environment under paragraph 11(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and a danger in Canada to human life or health under paragraph 11(c). On April 4, 1998, HVC was added to the List of Toxic Substances under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. (see footnote 3) Schedule 1, including the listing of HVC, was maintained under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999), which replaced the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

At present, there are no federal regulations relating to HVC air emissions. Although HVC air-emissions regulations exist in two provinces (Ontario and Quebec), (see footnote 4) and municipal by-laws in two Canadian cities (Montréal and Vancouver) (see footnote 5) are currently in place, there are significant differences in the emission limits. Given the variations in existing provincial regulations and the difference in requirements set under municipal by-laws for HVC emission limits, as well as the absence of regulations in eight provinces and the three territories, the proposed Regulations will serve to standardize HVC release limits across Canada and will provide a consistent degree of protection of the environment and human health.

The proposed Regulations apply to any person or persons (user or users) using more than 10 kilograms of chromium trioxide (CrO₃) (see footnote 6) per year. The users will be required to control the releases of HVC within the limits detailed below. To facilitate monitoring and enforcement of the proposed Regulations, users must retain all records, reports, plans, analytical methods, results from sampling, analysis, and other information for five years.

Users that release HVC to the environment from a point source (e.g. a stack (see footnote 7)), will be required to

• meet the following release limits for emissions of HVC, if measured separately, or, in any other case, of total chromium, for each point source without using dilution air:

Users will be required to conduct a release test (stack test) on the point source within six months of the proposed Regulations coming into force. Subsequent to the first stack test, another may be required within 30 months of coming into force of the proposed Regulations, if specific operational changes have been made to the user's facility or if HVC emissions do not meet the final release limit (0.03 mg/dscm).

Users will be required to conduct release testing every five years after the final release limit is in effect or when specific changes are made to the user facility. These users will also be required to submit a report of the stack test results to the Minister of the Environment within 75 days after the day on which the sample collection is completed.

Where users follow the requirements for surface tension, HVC emissions will be controlled by maintaining the surface tension of chromic acid solution in each tank. These users will be required to

• maintain the surface tension of the HVC-containing solution below 40 dynes (see footnote 8) centimetre, within 90 days after the date of coming into force of the proposed Regulations;

• provide the Minister of the Environment with surface tension records twice per year.

Those users that elect to use both control options (i.e. reduce surface tension in tanks by more than 20 dynes/cm and a control device on their point source) will be required to comply only with the requirements governing the maintenance of surface tension. That is, for user facilities with combined-control systems, the surface tension of chromic acid solution in each tank will be maintained at less than 40 dynes/cm. These facilities will also be subject to all the relevant regulatory requirements set out for maintaining, monitoring and reporting the surface tension of each tank as outlined above.

The proposed Regulations to be made pursuant to subsection 93(1) of CEPA 1999 will come into force 30 days after the day on which they are registered.

The option of taking no action to reduce HVC emissions from user facilities was rejected because of the potential adverse human health and environmental impacts that result from the current levels of HVC air emissions. Reduction in HVC air emissions cannot be achieved with the existing regulations in two provinces and municipal by-laws in two cities. It was therefore concluded that the status quo could not be allowed to persist and that some form of action to control HVC emission would need to be undertaken.

Economic instruments such as emission trading programs, environmental charges and subsidies were considered. Because of the uniqueness of the metal finishing industry, which is characterized by a large number of small operations and a low volume of sales per operation, emission trading programs and environmental charges were found to require high implementation and monitoring costs for both the federal government and the private sector. On the other hand, subsidies would also impose high administrative costs for the federal government for similar reasons. Therefore, these economic instruments for controlling HVC emissions were rejected.

Voluntary measures were rejected as an option for controlling HVC emissions. The technologies for controlling HVC air emissions from user's facilities are known, are readily available, and have been adopted by most operators. Users that have not already adopted the available control technologies would have little incentive to adopt these technologies, unless there was a requirement to do so. Although there are industry associations for the metal finishing industry, membership is not a requirement. This lack of required membership in industry association hampers the effectiveness of voluntary measures.

Controlling HVC air emission through regulations presents the most cost-effective management option. As mentioned above, the unique structure of the industry renders it difficult to apply any other management process. Regulating the air emissions of HVC would ensure that the management goal of minimizing environmental and health risks by reducing exposure to the substance and its release to air is met. Therefore, regulating air emissions of HVC was selected.

Chromium is a naturally occurring metal that is present principally in the trivalent or hexavalent forms in small amounts throughout the Canadian environment. Chromium ore is not produced in Canada. However, approximately 77 800 tonnes (gross weight) of various chromium-containing materials were imported into Canada in 2000. Chromium is used in a variety of industrial applications in Canada. Hexavalent forms of chromium are released into the environment in Canada as a result of these industrial uses, as well as from the production and combustion of fossil fuels and the smelting and refining of nonferrous base metals. For 2002, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contributions made by the metal finishing industry, of which chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing and reverse etching is a subsector, were estimated to be $500 million. Approximately 8 100 people were employed in this industry in 2000.

Users are categorized on the basis of processes employed, which include chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing and reverse etching. Chromium electroplating uses a chromic acid solution and applies a layer of chromium to the metal. The thickness of the layer depends on the plating time and the eventual use of the part that is plated. That is, thicker or heavier chromium deposits are for functional applications, whereas thinner or lighter deposits are for decorative applications. The base metal used in chromium anodizing is almost exclusively aluminum, and anodizing produces a protective oxide layer on the base metal. Reverse etching is not an electroplating or an anodizing process, but a commonly used process to clean or smooth the surface of the metal before functional chromium electroplating. Although the process of reverse etching only lasts for a maximum of a few minutes, HVC emissions similar to those from electroplating and anodizing processes are produced.

Canadian users consist of approximately 219 facilities, located in British Columbia (29), the Prairie provinces (43), Ontario (91), Quebec (48), and Atlantic Canada (8). Approximately 61 percent of these facilities are dedicated to functional (or hard) plating, with the remainder performing decorative plating or anodizing. There are no facilities dedicated primarily to the reverse etching process in Canada. These are included in the list of users involved in functional (hard) electroplating.

The chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing sector (which includes reverse etching) is an acknowledged source of HVC air emissions. The sector has a potential for uncontrolled releases of HVC estimated at 26.9 tonnes/year, (see footnote 9) with total controlled emissions estimated at 1.0 tonne/year, (see footnote 10) based on the assumption that all existing control devices are working at optimum efficiency.

Most existing facilities have installed HVC emission control devices. The most commonly used devices include composite mesh pad systems, packed bed scrubber, chevron mist eliminator, surface tension modifiers, mist suppressants, and plastic balls. The average efficiency of these control devices, provided they are working at full efficiency, is approximately 92 percent. It is technically impossible to achieve 100 percent efficiency in HVC emissions reduction, but Environment Canada estimates that an efficiency of 98 percent is economically and technically feasible.

The proposed Regulations are estimated to result in a net benefit to Canadian society in the order of $26.1 million (discounted at the rate of 5.75 percent over a 25-year period). The total discounted compliance cost to the private sector and the federal government is estimated at $22.8 million, while total benefits to Canadian society is estimated at $48.9 million. Detailed cost-benefit calculations, assumptions, and the analytical framework are presented below.

The approach to the cost-benefit analysis identifies, quantifies and monetizes the costs and benefits associated with the proposed Regulations. However, due to data limitations and uncertainties, not all of the identified benefits have been monetized. The key Cost-benefit Analysis (CBA) framework assumptions include the following:

• a timeframe of 25 years, which reflects the productive life of the HVC control equipment;

• a growth rate of 1.1 percent for the industry, which is based on the observed historical trend;

• only those costs and benefits which directly or indirectly affect Canadians are included, while costs and benefits that accrue internationally are precluded;

• for the private sector, the industry's incremental compliance costs related to HVC emission controls and stack testing have been calculated;

• a "with and without" approach is used to assess the benefits that accrue as a result of the proposed Regulations, which are compared to a baseline without the proposed Regulations;

• costs and benefits have been annualized at a discount rate of 5.75 percent; and

• sensitivity testing is carried out for discount rates between the 2 and 10 percent range.

• health benefits of the reduced risk of exposure to HVC (measured as "a willingness to pay");

All the costs and benefits of the proposed Regulations are expressed in 2002 dollar values.

A report prepared by SENES Consultants Ltd. (see footnote 11) formed the basis for estimating the industry's incremental compliance costs, benefits and net benefits associated with the proposed Regulations. As the report draws on data generated by the Environment Canada survey of 2000, estimates are first forecast from their 2000 level to 2004 (see footnote 12) and then throughout the 25-year time horizon.

The SENES report estimates that, in 2000, 75 of the 219 establishments were not meeting the proposed release limits or surface-tension maintenance level. Based on these estimates, and applying the above criteria, Environment Canada estimates that, by 2004, 78 establishments would either have to install an HVC emission-control device or maintain the surface tension of each tank at the specified level. Over the 25-year period, an additionnal 24 new electroplating establishments would have to incur costs to meet the interim and final requirements as outlined in the proposed Regulations. Therefore, it is estimated that approximately 102 electroplating establishments would have to incur costs to meet the interim and the final requirements as specified in the proposed Regulations.

Based on the above forecast, HVC control technologies (such as composite mesh pads or fume suppressants) are assigned to those establishments that would have to be in compliance with the interim and final HVC emission standards of the proposed Regulations. This assignment of control technologies was then used to estimate the reduction in HVC emissions, which would be in the order of 30 tonnes over the 25-year period.

Given the analytical cost-benefit framework of this study, the net benefits of the proposed Regulations have been calculated and are presented in the sections below.

It is estimated that the total cost to the 102 user facilities to comply with the proposed standards would be approximately $11.5 million (based on a 25-year analysis of costs discounted at 5.75 percent to 2002). This estimate includes the weighted capital, operating and equipment maintenance costs. A breakdown of these cost estimates is given in Table 1, below:

^a It is assumed that small facilities have one tank; medium-sized facilities two to four tanks; and large facilities more than five tanks.

^b The capital costs for composite mesh pads reflect the assumption that some firms would neither meet the first limit set out in the proposed Regulations nor the second stricter limit. Therefore, for firms that currently cannot meet the first limit, it likely would be more cost effective for them to install the required technology to meet the second stricter limit that comes into effect within 30 months after the proposed Regulations come into force. The capital costs for composite mesh pads were developed based on the assumption that those firms would act in this cost-effective manner.

Users choosing to install control equipment or that are currently operating control equipment (as opposed to surface tension control) will be required, under the proposed Regulations, to conduct periodic stack testing. Of the 219 estimated facilities, about half currently have installed or may choose to install control equipment in response to the proposed Regulations. Therefore, approximately 110 facilities will be required to conduct stack testing in the first six months after the proposed Regulations come into force, and then every five years thereafter. Similarly, half of the 24 expected new facilities (added over the 25-year period used for the cost-benefit analysis) will be required to conduct stack testing.

Within 24 months after the first stack testing requirement period ends, as outlined in the proposed Regulations, users may have to conduct a second stack test if specific operational changes have been made to the user facility or if HVC emissions do not meet the final release limit of 0.03 mg/dscm. As only a small percentage of the users are expected to be subject to the second stack test requirement, stack testing costs for these facilities have not been calculated. This additional cost is expected to be minimal and will not have a major impact on the overall stack testing costs.

The cost of a stack test can range from $2,000 to $6,600, with the average test being about $4,300. Stack testing costs are estimated as a function of the 110 facilities, plus 50 percent of the 24 new establishments (i.e. 12 new users), in the first six months, as well as every five years after the coming into force of the proposed Regulations. The discounted stack testing costs are in the order of $2.4 million, comprising $2.35 million for existing facilities and $60,000 for new establishments.

The reporting requirements mainly entail forwarding the stack test results and records of surface tension to the Minister of the Environment. Therefore, costs to user facilities to fulfill the reporting requirements of the proposed Regulations have not been estimated, as these costs are expected to be negligible.

With respect to enforcement costs, a one-time amount of $350,000 will be required for training enforcement officers and analysts designated to that position under CEPA 1999. Also, for the first year following the coming into force of the proposed Regulations, an amount of $30,000 will be required for intelligence work, i.e. assessing the regulated community. For subsequent years, an annual amount of $10,000 will be required to continue intelligence work.

Enforcement costs, for the first year following the coming into force of the proposed Regulations, are estimated to require an annual budget of $444,659, broken down as follows: $321,923 for inspections, $60,756 for investigations, and $61,980 for measures to deal with alleged violations (including environmental protection compliance orders, injunctions and prosecutions). Inspections will verify, among other things, whether or not regulated facilities are complying with the release limit prescribed by the proposed Regulations, the requirements related to fume suppressants for those facilities that use this technique, and the requirements for maintenance plans and for reports.

For the second year, the enforcement costs are estimated to require an annual budget of $401,373, broken down as follows: $190,572 for inspections, $112,629 for investigations, and $98,172 for measures to deal with alleged violations (including environmental protection compliance orders, injunctions and prosecutions).

In the third year, a stricter release limit comes into force. Therefore, there would be increased enforcement costs, which are estimated to require an annual budget of $640,035, broken down as follows: $433,926 for inspections, $112,629 for investigations, and $93,480 for measures to deal with alleged violations (including environmental protection compliance orders, injunctions and prosecutions).

Compliance promotion activities are intended to encourage the regulated community to achieve a high level of overall compliance as early as possible during the regulatory implementation process. Compliance promotion costs would require an annual budget of $155,951 during the first year of coming into force of the proposed Regulations and would include national and regional mail-outs; information sessions at seven locations across Canada; site visits to regulated facilities by compliance promotion staff; preparation and distribution of compliance guides, fact sheets, and regulation flowcharts; establishment and operation of a national Web site and toll-free help line; as well as presentations at industry association sessions and technical conferences.

Compliance promotion activities in year 2 and 3 would require $14,970 annually, comprising national and regional mail-outs, paid advertisements in trade journals, additional visits to regulated facilities and information sessions, if there is sufficient interest, and operation of the national Web site and toll-free help line.

Both enforcement and compliance costs are assumed to remain at year-3 level for the remainder of the 25-year period. Based on the above, the estimated Government costs are likely to be in the order of $8.8 million (discounted at 5.75 percent over a 25-year period).

The estimated total industry and Government costs associated with the proposed Regulations over the 25-year period are $22.8 million. Private sector costs represent approximately 61.4 percent ($14 million) and the cost to Government accounts for 38.6 percent ($8.8 million) of the total costs.

• human health benefits such as a reduction in fatal and non-fatal cancer and skin irritations—some gastrointestinal impacts in humans may also be avoided;

• ecosystem health impacts avoided in sensitive ecosystem receptors (such as aquatic organisms) as a result of a reduction in the use of HVC;

• benefit to user facilities from a reduced demand for HVC, which would decrease the cost of production; and

• avoided water supply contamination possibly resulting from a reduction in the handling and use of HVC.

Due to data limitations and uncertainties, not all of these benefits could be monetized to estimate their impact on the net benefits of the proposed Regulations.

A number of studies done in Canada during the 1990s have quantified and monetized the health benefits of reducing HVC. The estimated range of the benefits that would result from lower emission levels were derived from the weighted average dollar for each cancer case avoided and the probability of the number of estimated cancer cases that would be avoided. According to studies from which the Probability of Cancer (Reduced) (see footnote 13) variable was drawn, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) attributed a total of 110 lung cancer cases annually to exposure to a total of 160 tonnes of HVC emissions from U.S. electroplating establishments. This translates into approximately 0.69 cancer cases per tonne of HVC reduced. However, given the high degree of uncertainty associated with this variable, the variable was subjected to uncertainty testing by varying it between 0.48 (-30 percent of 0.69) and 0.76 (+10 percent of 0.69). The average value of this variable (i.e. 0.64) is multiplied by yearly emission reductions and is used to derive the benefit from reduced cancer mortality. This arbitrary range is used to conservatively weight the variable on the low side, i.e. a higher probability is assumed that the estimate is below the central value. The willingness to pay (WTP) (see footnote 14) to avoid contracting unspecified cancer values ranges between

The average value for WTP (i.e. $4,946,176) is then multiplied by the benefit from avoided cancer mortality to arrive at the monetized health benefits. Based on the average WTP of individuals to avoid contracting non-specified cancer and the average probability of reduction in cancer due to reduced HVC use, the discounted health benefits are estimated to be in the order of $48.6 million over the 25-year period.

A reduction in HVC emissions results in a decrease in the need for electroplaters to replenish the chromic acid solution. This yearly benefit to chromium electroplaters can be measured as the avoided cost of the HVC, measured at the market price ($4,400/tonne in 2002) multiplied by the quantity of HVC emissions reduced. This assumes a one-to-one relationship of the quantity of HVC emissions reduced and the quantity of HVC used. The discounted value of this benefit is in the order of $66,133 over the 25-year period.

HVC along with trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PERC) have been identified as causing ground water contamination. Although the proposed Regulations do not explicitly target HVC releases to land and water, reduced releases to the air and use of fume suppressants to avoid creation of HVC releases are expected to lead to a diminished presence of HVCs in the environment in general. Hence the risk of contamination of ground water and drinking water supplies from HVC should diminish.

This benefit is estimated on the assumption that a one-to-one relationship exists between the quantity of HVC emissions reduction and the quantity of chromic acid used. Therefore, the reduction in the use and handling of HVC is expected to result in a reduction in the incidence of ground water contamination. The economic benefit is then a function of the reduced risk of ground water contamination and the avoided costs of clean-up or an alternative water supply source.

To address the existing or historical HVC contamination of ground water, the affected municipalities incur expenses for the short-term provision of alternative water supplies, engineering studies and new water supply infrastructure. In the case of significant water-supply contamination episodes, these expenditures have been estimated to range between $2.2 million and $11 million. (see footnote 15) It is further assumed that these expenditures result from one significant HVC contamination event every 10 years. Thus, on a yearly basis, the probability of a contamination event is 10 percent. The proposed Regulations are expected to reduce this risk by 3.86 percent, which is the reduction in HVC use attributable to the proposed Regulations:

^a A one-to-one relationship between HVC emission and HVC use is assumed. That is, Total HVC use = Uncontrolled HVC emissions.

Multiplying the reduced risk (3.86% × 10%) due to the proposed Regulations by the yearly value of a contamination event due to HVC contamination results in a yearly benefit in the range of $8,600 to $43,000, with a central value of $26,000 per year. The discounted value of the avoided ground water contamination over the 25-year period is in the order of $307,768.

The estimated total benefits associated with the proposed Regulations over the 25-year period are $48.9 million. Health benefits account for over 99 percent at $48.5 million, and avoided HVC purchases and water supply contamination together account for 0.76 percent of the total benefits.

Overall, the proposed Regulations result in a net quantified benefit to Canadian society in the order of $26.1 million, using a discount rate of 5.75 percent in 2002 dollars. The proposed Regulations are estimated to reduce HVC emission by about 30 tonnes over the 25-year period.

As the benefits to the ecosystem could not be quantified due to data limitations and uncertainties, it is realistic to assume that the actual net benefit would be greater than $26 million.

The estimated net benefits were subjected to risk and uncertainty testing around the key input variables to identify the bounds of uncertainty of these estimates. A range of discount rates were also tested to identify the sensitivity of the net benefit estimate to changes in the discount rate. The objective of the risk and uncertainty testing is to identify the confidence in the calculated estimate of net benefits, and whether or not the proposed Regulations has inherent risks that may significantly impact the value of the net benefit estimate.

The key finding and conclusion of the uncertainty testing is that there is a very low risk that the proposed Regulations would result in a negative outcome (i.e. quantified net benefits being negative), and, therefore, the proposed Regulations are desirable from an economic efficiency perspective.

In view of the negative environmental and health impacts of HVC emissions as identified in the assessment report and the fairly stringent requirements on the chromium electroplating industry in the United States, there is general acknowledgement and support for the proposed Regulations.

The comments and concerns raised during various stakeholder meetings and Environment Canada's response to these are detailed below.

The report entitled "Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Priority Substance List Assessment Report, Chromium and its Compounds (1994)," concluded that HVC is toxic to the environment and to human health. In September 1995, a multi-stakeholder Issue Table (IT) was established under the Strategic Options Process (SOP) as part of the consultation process for controlling the emissions of cadmium, nickel and chromium from the metal finishing industry. The final meeting of the SOP IT was held in November 1996, after which a Strategic Options Report (SOR) (see footnote 16) was published in April 1999. It was recommended that a performance standard option for controlling HVC emissions be adopted, and that federal regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or guidelines through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment should be developed to ensure that all metal finishing companies using HVC for chromium electroplating or anodizing comply with specific emission limits.

During the course of the multi-stakeholder SOP IT meetings, several release limits were discussed and considered for inclusion in a proposed national standard. The release limits finally agreed upon by IT, and which appear in the final SOP report, are summarized below:

All new operations at the time of start-up are required to meet an emission limit of 0.2 mg/m³ for hexavalent chromium.

All existing operations are required to install and test control equipment for hexavalent chromium emissions and meet one of the following limits for hexavalent chromium. If control equipment is installed and tested

After publication of the SOR in April 1999, the Minister of the Environment announced the commissioning of a regulation for HVC emissions from chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing operations. At the time of this announcement, the proposed release limits were the limits agreed to during the SOP and presented above. Following the Minister's announcement, enquiries were made from the United States as to the stringency of the proposed Environment Canada release limits for chromium compared to the U.S. EPA Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard. It was apparent that the proposed Environment Canada release limits (as stated in the final SOP report) were far less stringent than that of the U.S. EPA MACT standard. Additionally, potential trade implications could exist under the North American Free Trade Agreement with the discrepancy between the proposed Environment Canada and existing U.S. EPA release limits.

In view of the clear discrepancy between the U.S. EPA limits and Environment Canada's proposed release limits for HVC, further internal review and discussion of the proposed release limit took place at Environment Canada. The purpose of these discussions was to establish new release limits for large, new and small or existing chromium electroplaters/anodizers. That is, large or new establishments would meet a more stringent release limit of 0.1 mg/dscm, and small or existing establishments would meet 0.2 mg/dscm, which were the minimum release limits agreed to at the SOP IT meetings.

However, Environment Canada decided it would not adopt different release limits, for example, based on size or age of a facility or operation.

Further internal review of the proposed Environment Canada release limit (0.2 mg/dscm) concluded that the proposed limit needed to be more comparable with the U.S. EPA release limits. Environment Canada concluded, in January 2001, that there should be an additional release limit of 0.03 mg/dscm (U.S. EPA release limit for small facilities), and that this release limit would take effect after a specified time. Because the chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing sector in Canada is predominantly composed of small- to medium-sized facilities (these facilities would also be designated as small by the U.S. EPA standard), the proposed additional release limit of 0.03 mg/dscm would be comparable to requirements in the United States.

In January 2001, a decision by Environment Canada was made to implement the requirements for HVC emissions from users' facilities, as outlined in the proposed Regulations.

Following the SOP, the publication of the SOR, the ministerial announcement of the proposed Regulations, and Environment Canada's decision on the requirements of the proposed Regulations, a series of stakeholder information sessions were organized by Environment Canada. The sessions were held in the following locations:

The information sessions were attended by industry representatives, industry associations and trade organizations, including the Canadian Association of Metal Finishers, the American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers and the Metal Finishing Suppliers Association, and by federal, provincial and municipal government representatives.

The purpose of the information sessions was to inform stakeholders of the content and requirements of the proposed Regulations. Speakers with expertise in the areas of control technologies, emission testing, the chemistry and use of fume suppressants and the measurement of surface tension, were invited to attend and to make presentations at the information sessions, to provide an overview of the technology, the range of point source control technology options, as well as the science and logistics of emission testing. The presentations were followed by question and answer sessions. Stakeholders were invited to provide comments and to contact Environment Canada for additional information.

In an effort to reach a wider audience, Environment Canada also made presentations on the requirements that would eventually be set out in the proposed Regulations at other industry-related conferences, workshops and seminars.

The information sessions provided an opportunity to meet with and present the proposed Regulations to industry. The comments and feedback received thus far from the Canadian industry, and Environment Canada's responses, are as follows:

• The frequency of measurement of surface tension proposed in the draft Regulations presented at the information sessions was once per 8 hours. The industry commented that the 8-hour measurement frequency was impractical for a chromium electroplater who is plating on a 24-hour basis.

Environment Canada recognized the impracticality of the requirement for an 8-hour measurement frequency. As a result, the frequency for measuring surface tension is being changed to once per 24 hours.

• The practicality of implementing two release limits starting with 0.2 mg/dscm and decreasing after a specified time to 0.03 mg/dscm was questioned. The suggestion from the industry was to have only one release limit of 0.03 mg/dscm (as the industry would eventually have to meet this limit) with a longer implementation timeframe of three years from the time the proposed Regulations come into force.

Environment Canada explained that the phased implementation of the two release limits, over the time period as stated in the proposal for the Regulations, would allow the industry the opportunity to test the ability of the control device to meet the higher release limit of 0.2 mg/dscm. In the event that the release test showed that this limit was satisfied, but that the lower limit (0.03 mg/dscm) was not satisfied, then users would have sufficient time to plan a retrofit or install a new device to meet the lower limit. In addition, the release limit of 0.2 mg/dscm is being retained by Environment Canada as this release limit was also agreed to by the industry during the SOP IT meetings.

No other questions or written comments were received from the industry after the completion of the information sessions, and no concerns were voiced at subsequent conference and workshop presentations.

A summary of the draft Regulations was sent to the CEPA National Advisory Committee (CEPA NAC) in April 2003, as part of the regulatory process. Separate presentations were also made to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (September 2002) and the Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec (July 2002).

No written comments were received from CEPA NAC, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment or the Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.

The Canadian Environmental Network (CEN) noted that the lower emission limit of 0.03 mg/dscm in the draft Regulations is lower than the lowest emission limit of 0.2 mg/dscm contained in the SOR. The CEN representative did suggest that monitoring for ambient levels of hexavalent chromium be reported after the coming into force of the Regulations, to determine if ambient levels of hexavalent chromium are decreasing. In response, Environment Canada informed the CEN that ambient levels of HVC, in addition to other substances, are monitored by Environment Canada through its national network of monitoring stations.

No written comments were received from the CEN subsequent to the presentation made to this group in December 2002.

The report on the recommendations of the SOP, as well as the comments received during and after the information sessions conducted with the Canadian industry, federal and provincial governments and the ENGOs, form the basis for these proposed Regulations.

Since the Regulations are made under CEPA 1999, enforcement officers will, when verifying compliance with the regulations, apply the Compliance and Enforcement Policy implemented under CEPA 1999. The policy outlines measures designed to promote compliance, including education, information, the promotion of technology development and consultation on the development of regulations. The Policy also sets out the range of possible responses to violations, including warnings, directions, environmental protection compliance orders, ticketing, ministerial orders, injunctions, prosecution, and environmental protection alternative measures (which are an alternative to a court trial after the laying of charges for a CEPA 1999 violation). In addition, the Policy explains when Environment Canada will resort to civil suits by the Crown for costs recovery.

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

• Nature of the alleged violation: This includes consideration of the damage, the intent of the alleged violator, whether it is a repeat violation, and whether an attempt has been made to conceal information or otherwise subvert the objectives and requirements of the Act.

• Effectiveness in achieving the desired result with the alleged violator: The desired result is compliance within the shortest possible time and with no further repetition of the violation. Factors to be considered include the violator's history of compliance with the Act, willingness to co-operate with enforcement officers, 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.

Peter J. Paine, M. Eng., P. Eng., Senior Program Engineer, Chemical Industries Division, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, (819) 997-2295 (telephone), (819) 994-5030 (facsimile), peter.paine@ec.gc.ca (electronic mail), or Ms. Céline Labossière, Policy Manager, Regulatory and Economic Analysis Branch, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, (819) 997-2377 (telephone), (819) 997-2769 (facsimile), celine.labossiere@ec.gc.ca (electronic mail).

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 Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing and Reverse Etching 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 that Act 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 Executive Director, National Office of Pollution Prevention, 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.

"chromium anodizing" means the passage of an electric current through a solution containing a hexavalent chromium compound, in a tank connected to a rectifier, in order to produce an oxide layer on the surface of a metal or other substrate. (anodisation au chrome)

"chromium electroplating" means the passage of an electric current through a solution containing a hexavalent chromium compound, in a tank connected to a rectifier, in order to produce a layer of chromium on the surface of a metal or other substrate. (électrodéposition du chrome)

"control device" means equipment used to control hexavalent chromium compound emissions produced from or during chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching. (dispositif de contrôle)

"dilution air" means air that is introduced at any time into hexavalent chromium compound emissions produced from or during chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching and that dilutes those emissions. (air de dilution)

"dscm" means a dry standard cubic metre of sample gas referenced to 25°C and 101.325 kPa. (m³ ass)

"facility" means a place at which chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching is performed. (installation)

"fume suppressant" means a substance that reduces or suppresses fumes or mists by reducing the surface tension of the solution containing a hexavalent chromium compound in a tank. (agent d'extinction de fumée)

"hexavalent chromium" means chromium in an oxidation state of +6. (chrome hexavalent)

"point source" means a stack or vent that is the outlet to the environment from the emission collection system connected to one or more tanks. (source ponctuelle)

"release test" means a test to determine the concentration of hexavalent chromium or total chromium, expressed as mg/dscm, contained in the emissions from a point source. (essai sur les rejets)

"representative operating conditions" means the conditions for obtaining an electrical output from a tank's rectifier while chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching is taking place that is equal to the average of the rectifier's output for the 30 days of use preceding the test. (conditions d'exploitation représentatives)

"reverse etching" means the passage of an electric current through a solution containing a hexavalent chromium compound, in a tank connected to a rectifier, in order to produce an etch on a metal or other substrate. (gravure inversée)

"surface tension" means the molecular force, measured in dynes per centimetre, that exists, in a tank, at the point where the solution containing a hexavalent chromium compound and air meet. (tension superficielle)

"tank" means the container in which chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching occurs. (cuve)

"total chromium" means the sum of hexavalent chromium and all other species of chromium. (chrome total)

2. These Regulations apply to any person that uses a solution containing a hexavalent chromium compound for chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching in a tank located at a facility where 10 kg or more of chromium trioxide (CrO₃) is used per calendar year.

3. Every person that uses a solution containing a hexavalent chromium compound for chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching in a tank located at a facility must control the release of that compound by one of the following methods:

(b) maintaining the surface tension of the solution in accordance with section 6; or

4. (1) Every person that uses a point source to release a hexavalent chromium compound into the environment must

(b) not exceed the following release limits for emissions of hexavalent chromium, if measured separately, or, in any other case, of total chromium, for each point source without using dilution air, namely,

(2) Every person that conducts chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching must perform a release test at each point source during representative operating conditions

(a) within six months after the day on which this section comes into force, and the analysis of the results must demonstrate that the average of the three sampling runs required under subparagraph (3)(a)(ii) does not exceed the limit set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(i);

(b) if none of the operations referred to in subsection (5) has been performed, within 30 months after the day on which this section comes into force, and the analysis of the results must demonstrate that the average of the three sampling runs does not exceed the limit set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii);

(c) if none of the operations referred to in subsection (5) has been performed, every five years following the completion of the test the results of which have not exceeded the release limit referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), and the analysis of the results of any subsequent test must also demonstrate that the average of the three sampling runs does not exceed the limit set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii); and

(d) if any of the operations referred to in subsection (5) has been performed, every five years after the completion of the test required under that subsection, and the analysis of the results must demonstrate that the average of the three sampling runs does not exceed the limit set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii).

(i) be performed, in accordance with generally accepted standards of good scientific practice at the time of the sampling, by a sampler trained and experienced to perform release sampling for chromium using a documented and validated method, and

(ii) consist of three two-hour sampling runs, each of which results in a minimum sample of 1.7 dscm;

(b) the analysis of the sample from each of the three sampling runs must be performed, in accordance with generally accepted standards of good scientific practice at the time of the analysis, by a laboratory

(i) that is accredited under the International Organization for Standardization standard ISO/IEC 17025: 1999, entitled General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, as amended from time to time, and

(ii) whose accreditation includes the analysis of chromium within its scope of testing; and

(c) the analysis of the sample from each of the three sampling runs must be performed with an analytical method whose precision and accuracy are based on a minimum of seven replicate samples and that has

(a) notify the Minister at least 30 days before performing the test, specifying the civic address of the facility at which and the three-day period within which the test will be performed; and

(b) provide the following information, immediately after the completion of the test, including the particulars of the test respecting each point source, namely,

(i) the location on a floor plan of the point source and of any tanks, control devices and fans that were connected to the point source,

(ii) the test method used,

(iii) the date of the test, the time at which it was started and the time at which it was completed,

(iv) the number of tanks in use and the number of on-site tanks that were not in use at the time of the test, if any,

(v) a description of the ventilation system used for each tank in use,

(vi) the respective diameters of the ducts linking each tank in use to a control device,

(vii) the electrical output setting for each tank's rectifier,

(viii) if a stack was used, the dimensions of the stack, the diameter and location of each sampling port in relation to the point of release from the stack and, if an extension was required to conduct the three sampling runs of the test, the type of extension, its dimensions and the location on the extension of each sampling port,

(ix) if a vent was used, the type of adaptor used to conduct the three sampling runs of the test, its dimensions and the location on the adaptor of each sampling port,

(x) the dimensions, type and manufacturer of each control device and the model, manufacturer and rated capacity of each control device fan as established by its manufacturer, and

(xi) the concentration, in mg/dscm, of hexavalent chromium, if measured separately, or, in any other case, of total chromium, released during each of the three sampling runs required and the average concentration calculated for those runs.

(5) Every person that performs one of the following operations must, within 60 days after completing the operation, perform a release test as required under subsection (3), and the test results must not exceed the applicable limit set out in subsection (2):

(c) increasing the electrical output of a tank's rectifier by more than 50% for more than 180 days of use, except where that use is interrupted, during the hours of use, by a reduction of that output level to less than 150% of the output level in use before the increase; or

(d) making changes to the ventilation system connected to a tank that affect the velocity, the flow rate or the direction of the ventilation.

(6) Every person that performed a release test, within 12 months before the day on which this section comes into force, whose result does not exceed the limit set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), must follow a release test frequency of every five years from the date of that release test, as required under paragraph (2)(c), if the following conditions are met:

(e) the date of the test, the time at which it was started and the time at which it was completed were recorded;

(g) at the time of the test at each point source, a record of that test was kept and, within 60 days after the coming into force of this section, a report of the test results was submitted to the Minister.

(7) Every person that opts to apply subsection (6) and that, after the coming into force of this section, adds a tank or increases the electrical output of a tank's rectifier by more than 50%, within 60 days after the addition or increase, must perform a release test as required under subsection (3), and the test results must not exceed the limit set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii).

5. (1) In relation to each control device being used, every person referred to in section 4 must

(b) if a composite mesh pad system is used and the mesh pads are not continuously washed, wash the mesh pads for at least 20 minutes

(c) at least once every 60 days, make a visual inspection to verify that the surface of the device and its external components, including its control panel, are free from any fracture or deformation; and

(d) verify that there are no leaks in the ductwork between each tank and the control device.

(2) In relation to any control device being used, every person referred to in section 4 must prepare and implement a maintenance program requiring an inspection at least every three months to verify that

(b) the device's internal and external surfaces and its external components, including its control panel, are free from any fracture or deformation;

(3) Every person performing any inspection or maintenance task referred to in subsection (1) or (2) must

(a) correct any defect identified in the course of the inspection that could contribute to a violation of these Regulations and repeat the inspection to verify the correction of the defect; and

(b) keep a record of the date on which each inspection or maintenance task required by subsections (1) and (2) was performed and provide a description of the inspection or maintenance task performed.

6. (1) This section applies to any individual that controls the generation of hexavalent chromium compound emissions during or from chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching by maintaining the surface tension of the solution containing a hexavalent chromium compound in each tank.

(2) Not later than 90 days after the coming into force of this section, every person referred to in subsection (1) must control the generation of hexavalent chromium compound emissions during or from chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching by maintaining the surface tension of the solution containing the hexavalent chromium compound in each tank at a value less than 40 dyn/cm.

(3) Every person referred to in subsection (1) must measure, maintain and record the surface tension of the solution containing the hexavalent chromium compound once every day during which a tank is used, in accordance with Method 306B, entitled Surface Tension Measurement for Tanks Used at Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Facilities, except paragraph 5.1, Federal Register (United States), Vol. 65, No. 201, October 17, 2000, p. 62273, as amended from time to time.

(4) If a tank is unused for more than 24 consecutive hours, every person referred to in subsection (1) must, before resuming chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching, measure the surface tension of the solution containing the hexavalent chromium compound in the tank and, if necessary, reduce the tension to less than 40 dyn/cm.

7. Every person that controls the generation of hexavalent chromium compound emissions during or from chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching by simultaneously using a point source equipped with a control device and reducing the surface tension for the solution containing the hexavalent chromium compound in each tank by more than 20 dyn/cm must maintain the surface tension in accordance with section 6.

8. Every person referred to in either section 4 or 6 that intends to change their chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching process in such a way that the other section will begin to apply to some or all of their activities must notify the Minister at least 30 days before the implementation of the change.

9. (1) Within 75 days after the day on which the sample collection was completed for any test required by section 4, the individual having performed the test must submit to the Minister a report of the test results, including the information set out in paragraph 4(4)(b).

(2) Every individual referred to in subsection 6(1) must submit to the Minister, no later than July 31 of every calendar year, a report of the surface tension recorded from January 1 to June 30 of the year in question, and must submit no later than January 31 of the next calendar year, a report of the surface tension recorded from July 1 to December 31 of the preceding calendar year.

(3) The individual who completes a report submitted under these Regulations must sign it and include the following information:

(4) The individual who completes a report submitted under these Regulations must attach a signed certification, including the name, title and e-mail address, if any, of the individual certifying that the information contained in the report is correct.

10. (1) The owner or operator of chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing or reverse etching equipment must keep all records, reports, maintenance programs, floor plans depicting the location of tanks and, if applicable, control devices and fans, test results and other information required by these Regulations at the place where that equipment is located or, on notification to the Minister, at any other place in Canada where the documents can be inspected for a period of at least five years beginning on the date of their creation.

(2) The person submitting the notice referred to in subsection (1) must specify the civic address at which the records, reports, plans, test results and other information can be inspected and identify each facility to which each of those records, reports, plans, test results and other information pertains.

11. (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force 30 days after the day on which they are registered.

(2) The definitions "chromium anodizing", "chromium electroplating", "representative operating conditions", "reverse etching" and "tank" in section 1 come into force on the day on which these Regulations are registered.

Environment Canada (1994), Priority Substance List Assessment Report for Chromium and its Compounds.

Environment Canada (April 4, 1998), Order Adding Toxic Substances to Schedule I to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canada Gazette, Part I, Vol. 132, No. 14.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment's HVC release limit of 5 µg/m³ is a point of impingement requirement for HVC air emissions, and the Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec's limit of 2 mg/m³ is a concentration-based release limit.

The City of Montréal and the Greater Vancouver Regional District have a concentration-based release limit for HVC of 2 mg/m³ and 0.5 mg/m³, respectively.

Chromium trioxide and water is mixed to produce a chromic acid solution of required strength.

A stack is a chimney or vent that is an outlet to the environment from the emission collection system connected to one or more tanks.

A dyne is a unit of force equal to the force that imparts an acceleration of 1 cm/sec/sec to a mass of 1 g.

This represents a very conservative estimate and may not necessarily reflect the actual level of HVC emissions.

SENES Consultants Ltd. (2002), Options and Costs to Reduce Air Emissions of Hexavalent Chromium Associated with Proposed Regulations for Canadian Electroplating and Anodizing Facilities.

2004 is the base year from which estimates related to the number of establishments and emission levels have been calculated for the 25-year period.

Essentially this variable assumes the number of cancer cases avoided per tonne of HVC reduced.

The WTP is obtained from the Air Quality Valuation Model Version 3.0: Report: Methodology (Stratus Consulting, 1996) and has been updated from 1996 values to 2002 using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Source: Raven Beck Environmental Ltd. (March 1995), Survey of Tetrachloroethylene and Trichloroethylene Occurrences in Canadian Groundwater.

Environment Canada and Health Canada (1999), Strategic Options for the Management of Toxic Substances from the Metal Finishing Industry.