Canada Gazette

Notice, under subsection 84(5) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, of the rescinding of Ministerial Conditions

Whereas the Minister of the Environment has previously imposed Ministerial Condition No. 10738 pertaining to the substance Difluoromethane, Chemical Abstracts Service No. 75-10-5, on August 25, 2001,

Whereas the Ministers of Health and of the Environment have assessed additional information pertaining to the substance,

The Minister of the Environment hereby rescinds Ministerial Condition No. 10738 under subsection 84(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Response to comments received on the proposed Agreement Respecting the Canada-wide Standard for Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Electric Power Generation Plants

In accordance with subsection 9(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, on July 23, 2005, the Minister of the Environment published a proposed agreement with the provincial and territorial governments (except Quebec) respecting a Canada-wide Standard (CWS) for Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Electric Power Generation Plants for a 60-day comment period. The comment period ended on September 21, 2005. The agreement was developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) under the framework of the Canada-wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization and the Canada-wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement.

In accordance with subsection 9(4) of the Act, this report summarizes how the comments were dealt with.

A total of ten submissions were received. Seven submissions were from environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), one from a public health authority, one from academia, and one from an association representing the electric power industry.

The submissions from ENGOs, the health authority and academia supported earlier and stronger action on mercury, while the one from industry expressed concern about uncertainties in the availability of technology to help reduce mercury emissions and in the timelines to meet the targets and dates proposed in the CWS.

The comments are categorized and summarized below. Environment Canada's responses follow each comment.

Comments: It will be difficult to achieve a serious mercury standard through the present process given the leading roles of the provinces. The Government of Canada and the people of Canada are missing an opportunity to make significant improvements in air quality.

Response: Authority to manage mercury emissions from coal-fired electric generating plants is jointly held by the federal and provincial governments. As such, it is important that the approach to reduce the health and environmental impacts of mercury, which are attributable to this source, be both achievable and developed jointly by these two government jurisdictions. Input from industry, other stakeholders, and the public has been an important part of the process to develop this CWS.

Question: How does this draft CWS comply with our international commitments?

Response: Canada's international commitments pertaining to mercury focus on achieving an overall reduction of emissions from a range of source categories not limited to coal-fired electric power generation plants. Initiatives, such as implementation of this CWS, which result in lowered emissions all contribute to meeting our international commitments.

Comment: Coal-fired power plants are the largest single anthropogenic source sector of atmospheric mercury emissions in Canada, emitting approximately 40% of all atmospheric mercury emissions in Canada.

Response: Environment Canada's most recent inventory (year 2000) shows that coal-fired power plants are indeed the largest single source of atmospheric emissions of mercury in Canada; however, the data show that atmospheric mercury emissions from the electric power generation sector represent 25% of the inventory.

Question: Mercury emissions from Alberta are significantly greater than originally estimated and reported in the National Pollutant Release Inventory—is there an explanation for this?

Response: The requirements of the data collection effort for the CWS were rigorous. Therefore, the estimates of mercury emissions that were presented to the CCME CWS Development Committee are considered to be more complete and accurate than those of previous inventories. The estimates presented to the CCME CWS development process were used to develop the targets set out in the CWS.

Comment: Reference is made to a 90% capacity factor for plants in Alberta, but it is not clear how this affects mercury emissions.

Response: At the time of the information-gathering for the CWS (2002–2004), plants in the province in question were operating below their normal aggregate capacity. The province believed it would be more realistic to present an emission inventory that reflected normal operation of 90% capacity factor. The mercury emissions were subsequently adjusted to include the additional mercury emissions that would have occurred had plants been operating at the more usual 90% capacity factor. It is the adjusted mercury emissions that are reported in the CWS.

Comments: The CWS targets are inadequate and do not signify major efforts to reduce mercury emissions. The CWS cap for mercury emissions should be applied to new plants as well as existing plants.

Response: CWSs are intended to be achievable targets and are based not only on sound science but also on other factors such as social aspects (e.g. effects on employment), economic impacts (e.g. costs associated with solving the problem), and technical feasibility. Given the current state of knowledge of technologies, economic and social factors, and options to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the targets in the CWS represent a substantial and achievable reduction in mercury emissions. Applying a fixed cap on mercury emissions for existing plants is a feasible strategy, as the ways and means of achieving the cap are well understood for these facilities. However, to include new plants in an overall sector emissions cap could constrain the development of new generating capacity. This latter situation could unfairly disadvantage certain regions of the country where new generation capacity is needed and where coal is the fuel of choice due to economic realities. It should be underscored that the CWS specifies a rigorous environmental performance mercury criterion for new plants similar to the strict environmental performance criteria that exist for all other emissions from new plants.

Comment: Capture rates do not address the impact of increases in generation from existing facilities or the use of coal with higher mercury levels, both of which would lead to increases in mercury emissions.

Response: The capture rates specified in the CWS do not apply to existing plants; they apply to new plants only. Existing plants are subject to the emissions caps and, therefore, regardless of increase in generation or use of coals with higher mercury level, the cap is not to be exceeded.

Comment: Requirements for new units in Canada appear to be significantly more stringent than the recently revised New Source Review requirements for mercury emissions in the United States.

Response: The goal of the CWS for new plants is to achieve the 75% or 85% (depending on coal type or blend) capture of mercury in the coal burned. Information on current state-of-the-art technologies to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants indicates that mercury control technologies are advancing at a rapid pace and, therefore, Environment Canada is confident that this goal is achievable in the time frame of the CWS.

Question: Does capturing 85% of mercury in coal necessarily translate into an emission rate of 3 mg/MWh?

Response: For a new plant, the specified percent capture of mercury would not necessarily translate into the specified emission rate. The CWS emission rates for new plants are derived from the averages of the mercury emission rates of existing plants. For example, the mercury emission rates of all plants that burn lignite fuel were averaged and the percent capture for lignite was then applied to this average to arrive at the CWS mercury emission rate for new plants. This procedure was carried out for the other coal types and blends. The CWS specifies that a new plant may either meet the percent capture or the emission rate based on the specified fuel type.

Question: What happens if a plant shuts down for a period? Is it considered a new plant when it reopens?

Response: No, the CWS includes the list of facilities that are in place at the time of endorsement of the CWS. These facilities will be subject to the targets for existing plants for the duration of this CWS.

Question: What measures are to be instituted if these "caps" are not met? There should be clearly specified consequences for non-performance.

Response: Governments are responsible for implementing the CWS and are accountable to the public for doing so. The CWS is to be implemented by the various jurisdictions in accordance with their laws, which provide for enforcement. In implementing the standards, governments may choose to use their existing legal authorities, or create new ones if necessary. If the monitoring and reporting process should indicate that there is a potential for failure in meeting the targets, this could signal a need to resume discussions among the jurisdictions on the matter.

Comments: Mercury emission level requirements for new generating units have been specified in the CWS at levels that are not currently supported by vendor guarantees. The results from a pilot-scale project indicate that mercury removal target can be achieved but with maintenance and operating expenses significantly higher than originally projected.

Response: Current information indicates that the state-of-the-art technologies for mercury removal is rapidly advancing and, therefore, Environment Canada is confident that the CWS standards for new plants will be achievable in the time frame and at reasonable cost.

Comments: Two existing facilities already have emission rates of 3 and 1 mg/MWh, which indicates that all plants should be able to achieve much lower rates than required by the CWS. Currently, technologies are available for certain types of coal that allow for a 90% capture of mercury and, where these technologies are available, they should be implemented immediately. The federal government should require that all types of coal meet the stricter limit of 3 kg/TWh. If two standards are specified, the more stringent of the two should be met.

Response: All plants cannot achieve the same levels of emissions reductions. The configuration of the plant, the type of combustor, the control equipment installed, and the types of fuel burned are some of the factors that affect the amounts and species of mercury emissions and, therefore, the potential for controlling the mercury. The caps for existing plants, and the capture and emission rates for new plants, are designed so that the CWS can be met with a range of technologies, equipment and fuels, so as to not unfairly constrain any particular region of the country in meeting its energy needs.

Comments: The provinces and the federal government must actively engage in research and implementation of energy conservation methods, and clean, reliable energy sources that are mercury free.

Response: The Government of Canada is committed to accelerating the development and use of emerging renewable energy sources. This is reflected in our substantial investments in this area, and in the emphasis placed on emerging renewable energy in Budget 2005 and Canada's new climate change plan, Moving Forward on Climate Change: A Plan for Honouring our Kyoto Commitment, released in April 2005.

To show leadership and contribute to reducing emissions from energy, the federal government is accelerating the use of emerging renewable low-impact electricity in its own operations. The Government has made a commitment to purchase 20% of the electricity needed for federal operations from emerging renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, and has already achieved progress toward this goal. For example, in Alberta, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada purchase 100% of their facilities' electricity as green power. Also, federal offices and laboratories in Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island now obtain almost half of their electricity from wind power.

Comment: The use of coals with low mercury concentrations should be mandated so as to prevent and reduce mercury emissions.

Response: This is not practical for provinces with large reserves of indigenous coal and the infrastructure designed to utilize these resources.

Comments: There is no long-term objective of the CWS. The only firm date specified is 2010 for existing plants. It is not ambitious enough that the proposed mercury emission limits would be in place until 2018. There is no assurance that the CWS will be reviewed or how.

Response: Pursuant to section 9 of CEPA 1999, which pertains to administrative agreements, the proposed standard will expire five years after its coming into force. Upon expiry, the CWS will be reviewed before being renewed. When renewed, the CWS can reflect new information about technology, fuel types and other factors that may affect mercury emissions and the potential to reduce those emissions.

Comments: The timeline for achievement of the first performance level in 2010 is not universally achievable. The temporal misalignment of the CWS with the U.S. Clean Air Mercury Rule may affect the process of technology development.

Response: With the suite of actions proposed by the jurisdictions, the reductions specified in the CWS are achievable by 2010. Actions in the United States will not affect this.

Response: Implementation plans are being developed by each affected jurisdiction. These plans will be made available as an Annex to the CWS and will be made public when the CWS is finalized. This will provide transparency to the public with regard to actions taken to achieve the CWS.

Comment: There is no further information on the nature or the content of the monitoring protocol. It appears that the public process and ability to provide input to the contents of progress reports is limited.

Response: The CWS Development Committee is now working to develop the Monitoring and Reporting Protocol. The purpose of the Protocol is to ensure commonality, consistency and transparency among the jurisdictional monitoring and reporting procedures. A draft of the Protocol will be consulted upon during an upcoming meeting of the multi-stakeholder advisory group. This advisory group is composed of representatives from industry, environmental organizations, health organizations and citizen groups.

Whereas the Ministers of the Environment and of Health have assessed information in respect of the substance Difluoromethane, Chemical Abstracts Service No. 75-10-5;

And whereas the Ministers suspect that a significant new activity in relation to the substance may result in the substance becoming toxic according to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;

Therefore the Minister of the Environment indicates, pursuant to section 85 of that Act, that subsection 81(4) of the same Act applies with respect to the substance.

A significant new activity involving the substance is any new activity other than importing it, manufacturing it or using it in closed loop cooling systems, whether in refrigerants or in air conditioning, where such activity is undertaken at quantities in excess of 1 000 kilograms in a calendar year.

A person that proposes a significant new activity set out in this notice for this substance shall provide to the Minister of the Environment, at least 90 days prior to the commencement of the proposed significant new activity, the following information:

(1) A description of the proposed significant new activity in relation to the substance;

(2) All information prescribed by Schedule 4 of the New Substances Notification Regulations (Chemicals and Polymers);

(4) The pollution prevention measures proposed to prevent or reduce releases of the substance into the environment; and

(5) The specific substance name, the Chemical Abstracts Service registry number (if one has been assigned) and the molecular formula of the substance it is replacing.

The above information will be assessed within 90 days of its being provided to the Minister of the Environment.

A Significant New Activity Notice (SNAc Notice) is a legal document pursuant to subsection 81(4) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) issued by the Minister, that lists the activities for a given substance in Canada for which there has been no finding of toxicity under the CEPA 1999. The SNAc Notice sets out the appropriate information that must be sent to the Minister for assessment prior to the commencement of a new activity as described in the SNAc Notice.

Substances that are not listed on the Domestic Substances List can only be imported or manufactured by the person who has met the requirements under sections 81 or 106 of the CEPA 1999. Under section 86 of the CEPA 1999, in circumstances where a SNAc Notice is issued for a new substance, it is the responsibility of every person who transfers the physical possession or control of the substance to notify all persons to whom the possession or control is transferred of the obligation to comply with the SNAc Notice and of the obligation to notify of any new activity and all other information as described in the SNAc Notice. It is the responsibility of the users of the substance to be aware of and comply with the SNAc Notice and to submit a SNAc notification to the Minister prior to the commencement of a significant new activity associated with the substance.

A SNAc Notice does not constitute an endorsement from Environment Canada of the substance to which it relates nor an exemption from any other laws or regulations that are in force in Canada and that may apply to this substance or activities involving the substance.

The Minister of Industry proposes that the following geographical indications be entered on the list of geographical indications kept pursuant to subsection 11.12(1) of the Trade-marks Act, where "(i)" refers to the file number, "(ii)" refers to the indication and whether it identifies a wine or spirit, "(iii)" refers to the territory, or the region or locality of a territory in which the wine or spirit is identified as originating, "(iv)" refers to the name of the responsible authority (the person, firm or other entity that is, by reason of state or commercial interest, sufficiently connected with and knowledgeable of the wine or spirit), "(v)" refers to the address in Canada for the responsible authority, and "(vi)" refers to the quality, reputation or other characteristic of the wine or spirit that, in the opinion of the Minister, qualifies that indication as a geographical indication:

(i) File No. 1245658

(ii) Sierras de Málaga (Wine)

(iii) Spain—Málaga, Alameda, Alcaucín, Alfarnate, Alfarnatejo, Algarrobo, Alhaurín de la Torre, Almachar, Almargen, Almogia, Alora, Antequera, Archez, Archidona, Arenas, Arriate, Atajate, Benadalid, Benamargosa, Benamejí, Benomocarra, Borge, Campillos, Canillas de Aceituno, Canillas de Albaida, Cártama, Casabermeja, Casares, Colmenar, Comares, Cómpeta, Cuevas Bajas, Cuevas de San Marcos, Cutar, Estepona, Frigiliana, Fuentepiedra, Gaucín, Humilladero, Iznate, Macharaviaya, Manilva, Moclinejo, Mollina, Nerja, Palenciana, Periana, Pizarra, Rincon de la Victoria, Riogordo, Ronda, Salares, Sayalonga, Sedella, Sierra de Yeguas, Torremolinos, Torrox, Totalán, Vélez-Málaga, Villanueva de Algaidas, Villanueva del Rosario, Villanueva de Tapia, Villanueva del Trabuco y Viñuela.

(iv) Consejo Regulador de las Denominaciones de Origen Málaga-Sierras de Málaga, Fernando Camino N^o 2-3^o 3, 29016 Málaga, Spain

(v) D. Isidoro Fernández-Valmayor Crespo, Promotion Centre "Wines from Spain" in Canada, Spanish Commercial Office, 2 Bloor Street E, Suite 1506, Toronto, Ontario M4W 1A8

(vi) The name listed in (ii) is recognized and protected as a geographical indication for wine in the Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1493/1999 and Orden de 22 noviembre de 2001 de Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (ministerial order of the Spanish ministry of agriculture, fish and food of November 22, 2001), published in the state official bulletin, (BOE) No. 295 of December 10, 2001.

(i) File No. 1255906

(ii) Vodka of Finland/Suomalainen Vodka/Finsk Vodka (Spirit)

(iii) Finland

(iv) Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, P.O. Box 30, 00023 Government, Finland

(v) Embassy of Finland, 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 80, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L5

(vi) The name listed in (ii) is recognized and protected as a geographical indication for a spirit in Decree of the Finnish Government on Alcoholic Beverages and Spirits 1344/1994 and Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1576/89 of May 1989. A copy of the relevant provisions of the Council Regulation is available from the Office of the Registrar of Trade-marks.

Société Générale and Dexia Crédit Local S.A. — Orders permitting foreign banks to establish branches in Canada

Pursuant to subsection 524(1) of the Bank Act, the Minister of Finance made an order on October 5, 2005, permitting Société Générale to establish a branch in Canada to carry on business in Canada under the name Société Générale (Canada Branch) and an order on October 27, 2005, permitting Dexia Crédit Local S.A. to establish a branch in Canada to carry on business in Canada under the name Dexia Crédit Local S.A.

MetLife Canada — Letters patent of incorporation and order to commence and carry on business

RBC Dexia Investor Services Trust — Letters patent of incorporation and order to commence and carry on business

GOVERNMENT NOTICES