| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vol. 137, No. 31 — August 2, 2003 Regulations Amending the Inclusion List RegulationsStatutory Authority Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Sponsoring Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency REGULATORY IMPACT Description In May 2000, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSC Act) came into effect. The NSC Act is the first major overhaul of Canada's nuclear regulatory regime in over 50 years. The legislation reflects the increased federal focus in nuclear affairs on health, safety, security, and environmental protection. It replaced the Atomic Energy Control Act (AEC Act), and the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) was replaced by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) which now carries out the federal government's nuclear regulatory responsibilities. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) requires federal authorities (FAs) to conduct environmental assessments (EAs) before initiating or funding projects, disposing of lands or any interest therein for the purpose of allowing a project to be carried out, or issuing certain regulatory permits or authorizations for projects. Until May 2000, certain nuclear activities, licenced by the AECB under the AEC Act, were subject to the EA requirements of the CEA Act. The purpose of the set of proposed amendments to the regulations is to ensure that the previous functional link, between the nuclear regulatory legislation and the federal EA legislation, is maintained and replicated. If the amendments to the regulations were not proposed, certain licencing decisions of the CNSC would be deemed by the Interpretation Act to be an EA triggers under the CEA Act. To rely on the deeming provisions of the Interpretation Act would lead to much confusion within Government and industry, and among members of the public. Four key regulations determine the CEA Act's application: the Inclusion List Regulations, the Exclusion List Regulations, the Law List Regulations and the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. The Inclusion List Regulations specify physical activities that may have significant environmental effects, and that are "projects" under the CEA Act. The Exclusion List Regulations specify undertakings in relation to a physical work for which an EA is not required because experience indicates they are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The Law List Regulations prescribe specific provisions of federal statutes and regulations that trigger a federal EA by an FA, such as the CNSC, before a project can proceed. The majority of projects reviewed under the CEA Act are subject to a screening level EA. A small number of projects require a more extensive EA called a comprehensive study. These projects are identified in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. In the nuclear sector, an example of such a project would be the proposed construction, operation or decommissioning of a nuclear fission reactor. This Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) focuses on a set of proposed amendments to the regulations that replicate, to the most practicable extent, the previous functional link between the nuclear regulatory legislation and the federal EA regime under the CEA Act. The RIAS also includes information on a proposed change to the General section of the Exclusion List Regulations. This change would apply to all the economic sectors covered under the CEA Act, and would be a part of the replication of the previous functional link between the nuclear legislation and the CEA Act. The proposed changes to the regulations are compatible with the CNSC's responsibilities, under the NSC Act and the CEA Act, to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration before the CNSC takes licencing actions in connection with projects. The proposed change to the General section of the Exclusion List Regulations would mean that the uninterrupted continuation of an identical operation of an existing physical work, in which environmental effects remain unchanged, would be exempt from the EA requirements of the CEA Act. This change is one of the measures aimed at the replication of the former nuclear EA regime under the AEC Act. It would apply to the operation of all physical works, including those in the nuclear sector. Because of changes in terminology, criteria and parameters brought about by the NSC Act and its regulations, there are some slight variations in the proposed EA regulations. These variations reflect minor differences between the nuclear regulatory regime under the AEC Act and the regime under the NSC Act. For example: — new threshold criteria, in the Inclusion List Regulations, to reflect revised radiation protection concepts in the NSC Act; — the addition to the Inclusion List Regulations of projects explicitly identified in the NSC Act, e.g. activities relating to a nuclear-powered vehicle; — the addition to the Inclusion List Regulations of a reference to unsealed nuclear substances being stored at a particular location; and — the removal of certain unrelated licencing authorizations that were previously referenced in the Law List Regulations alongside relevant licencing provisions. For example, the revocation or suspension of a licence for a uranium mine is not retained as an EA trigger, but the amendment of the terms of a uranium mine licence is retained as a trigger. A. Amendments to the Inclusion List Regulations A project under the CEA Act can be either an undertaking in relation to a physical work or an activity that is described in the Inclusion List Regulations. The Inclusion List Regulations specify physical activities that are defined as "projects" under the CEA Act. Changes are proposed to the Interpretation section (section 2 of the Regulations), and to the structure and terminology of the sections on nuclear projects (Part III of the Schedule to the Regulations). The changes to the terms and definitions in the Interpretation section are required to allow for a clear understanding and consistent interpretation of the other proposed amendments to the Inclusion List Regulations. The new terms and definitions replace those contained in the AEC Act and its regulations, with equivalent or similar terms contained in the NSC Act and its regulations. An example is the proposed change of the term "prescribed substance" to "nuclear substance." The changes in Part III of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations ensure that the thresholds, under the AEC Act, are maintained through reference to the appropriate criteria, terms and levels established under the NSC Act. To ensure that activities involving the abandonment, disposal or planned releases of nuclear substances (previously called "prescribed substances") continue to be defined as projects under the CEA Act, an amended section 20 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations is proposed. This proposed new section also incorporates and consolidates the existing set of activities that are currently defined as projects in sections 20-21 and 23-24 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations. The original intent of section 20 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations was to ensure that the CEA Act applied to planned practices involving the use of nuclear substances that could result in the release of nuclear substances at levels that could have more than a trivial impact on the environment. Section 21 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations established that the abandonment or disposal of a substance, material, device or equipment containing uranium or thorium above a particular concentration, would be subject to an EA under the CEA Act. Section 23 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations established that certain procedures in a medical context that could result in the use of nuclear substances above prescribed levels, were also subject to the CEA Act. Section 24 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations established that planned testing activities in an industrial context that could result in the release of nuclear substances at levels that could result in more than a trivial impact on the environment, were also subject to the CEA Act. As it would be more appropriate to have a common definition of when a planned practice, involving the abandonment, disposal or planned release of nuclear substances, is a project under the CEA Act, the proposed section 20 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations incorporates all the above requirements, (sections 20-21 and 23-24) into such a statement. The existing section 20 of the Inclusion List Regulations ensured that an EA would have been carried out prior to the licencing of abandonment or disposal activities under the AEC Act, that could result in the release of nuclear substances at levels that could have more than a trivial impact on health, safety and the environment. Under the NSC Act, the threshold for releases that may have more than a trivial impact on public health and safety equates to approximately 1 percent to 5 percent of the effective dose limit for a member of the public, as prescribed in subsection 13(1) of the Radiation Protection Regulations under the NSC Act. The proposed paragraph 20(a) of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations would establish that in circumstances where a nuclear substance is readily removable from other substances, i.e. a sealed nuclear substance, a planned practice that results in the abandonment, disposal or potential release of the nuclear substance above exemption levels defined in the Nuclear Substances and Radiation Regulations, would be a project under the CEA Act. The proposed exemption levels are in line with those in the existing paragraph 20(a), sections 21 and 23, and paragraph 24(a) of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations. The proposed paragraph 20(b) would establish that where a nuclear substance is contained in an unsealed state, a planned practice resulting in the abandonment, disposal or potential release of a nuclear substance that is above an exemption level defined in subsection 13(1) of the Radiation Protection Regulations, would also be a project under the CEA Act. The proposed exemption level is in line with those in the existing paragraph 20(b), sections 21 and 23, and paragraph 24(a) of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations. In summary, under proposed paragraphs 20(a) and (b) of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations, there would be common determinations of when a planned activity, involving a sealed or an unsealed nuclear substance, would be considered a project under the CEA Act; and the intended issuance or amendment of a licence to allow such a project to proceed would trigger an EA. The repeal of sections 21, 23 and 24 of Part III is as a result of the consolidation of the requirements contained in these existing sections into the proposed section 20. With respect to section 21, the criteria for the disposal of uranium and thorium by weight are no longer used under the new nuclear regime. The inclusion thresholds for the disposal of uranium and thorium would be appropriately addressed in the proposed section 20 that is based on criteria established in the new nuclear legislation. The proposed deletion of section 23, relating to nuclear medicine, and the use of the proposed section 20, is to ensure consistency among all licensed physical activities. Experience has shown that treating nuclear medicine activities differently from other licensed users of nuclear substances is not warranted. As all proposed tracer studies are proposals to release nuclear substances into the environment, and such activities are addressed in the proposed section 20, then section 24 is redundant. The existing section 22 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations established that the proposed abandonment or disposal of a substance, material, device, or equipment contaminated with a nuclear substance above a specified level would be subject to the CEA Act. It is proposed that the wording of the existing section 22 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations be changed by replacing the term "prescribed substance" with the corresponding term "nuclear substance" that is used in the NSC Act. The proposed section 23 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations is a provision that addresses the potential risk that could result from the possession or use of large quantities of unsealed nuclear substances. The section would require the carrying out of an EA prior to the use, or possession, of significant quantities of unsealed nuclear substances. This proposed section 23 complements the proposed section 20 that is concerned with planned activities that could involve the releases of nuclear substances into the environment. The proposed section 24 of the Schedule to the Inclusion List Regulations is included because a nuclear-powered vehicle, e.g. a nuclear submarine, was not explicitly identified in the AEC Act and regulations, but it is included in the NSC Act under the definition of "vehicle." Because a nuclear-powered vehicle would be mobile, it is not considered to be a physical work. It is therefore necessary to include activities pertaining to nuclear-powered vehicles in the Inclusion List Regulations so that they are considered to be projects under the CEA Act; and are, therefore, subject to an EA before the CNSC issues or amends an associated licence. B. Amendments to the Exclusion List Regulations The Exclusion List Regulations specify undertakings in relation to a physical work for which an EA is not required because experience indicates they are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed changes to these Regulations replicate the existing sections by modifying the Interpretation section (section 2 of the Regulations), the General sections (Part I of Schedule I to the Regulations), and the Electrical and Nuclear Energy sections (Part III of Schedule I to the Regulations). The proposed amendments to the definitions in the Interpretation section are caused by changes brought about by the NSC Act. They are required in order to enable a clear understanding and interpretation of the other proposed amendments to the Exclusion List Regulations. In section 2 of the Interpretation section, it is proposed that the term "nuclear facility," in French, be changed from "établissement nucléaire" to the term "installation nucléaire" and that the definition of the term be changed to be in line with its definition in French under the NSC Act. Amendment relating to all economic sectors, including the nuclear sector The proposed addition of section 2.1 to Part I of Schedule I of the Exclusion List Regulations is in line with the aim of replicating, as closely as possible, the existing EA regime in the nuclear sector. This proposal would ensure that the issuance of a licence to permit the uninterrupted continuation of the operation of an existing nuclear facility in an identical manner would be exempt from an EA under the CEA Act. As the purpose of the CEA Act is to ensure that EAs are conducted before irrevocable decisions are made, this section would also apply, in specific circumstances, to the operation of a physical work in the other sectors which are subject to the CEA Act. The circumstances would be as follows. If the operation of a physical work was transferred from one party to another, without any break in the operation, provided the relevant FA had determined that the current operation does not have significant environmental effects, an EA under the CEA Act would not be required. Amendments relating specifically to the nuclear sector The proposed section 26 of Part III of Schedule I to the Exclusion List Regulations indicates that a subcritical nuclear assembly, Class II prescribed equipment, a radiation device affixed to a nuclear facility, and most Class II nuclear facilities would be exempt from the federal EA process. Under the proposed paragraph 26(a) of Part III of Schedule I, a subcritical nuclear assembly would continue to be exempt from a federal EA. (A subcritical nuclear assembly is an assembly that contains fissile material, but it is not designed to achieve a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.) A subcritical nuclear assembly licensed by the CNSC poses an insignificant risk to the environment, and is exempt from a federal EA under the existing section 26 of Part III of Schedule I to the Exclusion List Regulations. Class II prescribed equipment, includes small-scale devices such as a brachytherapy machine and a teletherapy machine. (The former is used to place a sealed source inside, or in contact with, a person for therapeutic purposes. The latter delivers controlled doses of radiation in a beam for therapeutic purposes.) This type of equipment poses an insignificant risk to the environment; is currently exempt from a federal EA under the existing section 27 of Part III of Schedule I to the Exclusion List Regulations; and under the proposed paragraph 26(b) of Part III of Schedule I, would continue to be exempt from a federal EA. A radiation device affixed to a nuclear facility also poses an insignificant risk to the environment. (A radiation device attached to a nuclear facility would be attached to a building or a process system, e.g. a density gauge fastened to a pipe.) The existing section 27 of Part III of Schedule I to the Exclusion List Regulations indicates that such devices are currently exempt from a federal EA. Under the proposed paragraph 26(c) of Part III of Schedule I, such a radiation device would continue to be exempt from a federal EA. The types of low-power particle accelerators that are exempt from a federal EA under the existing section 26, along with other similar small facilities, are now defined in the NSC Act as Class II nuclear facilities. (A low power accelerator capable of operating at a level of beam energy no more than 50 MeV — where MeV is a measure of radiation energy.) Most of these facilities continue to pose an insignificant potential risk to the environment, and in the proposed paragraph 26(d) of Part III of Schedule I, undertakings in respect of such facilities are identified as projects for which an EA is not required. The only exception to this exemption is a Class II nuclear facility that employs a pool-type irradiator. (A pool-type irradiator consists of equipment that delivers controlled doses of radiation to a target, and the sealed source in the equipment is contained in a storage pool usually containing water.) The proposed paragraph 26(d) of Part III of Schedule I of the Exclusion List Regulations indicates that such a Class II nuclear facility would continue to be subject to an EA. Under the NSC Act, most of the physical works covered in the existing section 27 of Part III of Schedule I are now defined as Class II nuclear facilities or Class II prescribed equipment, i.e. facilities that do not pose a significant risk to the environment. Undertakings in respect of these works are included within the exemption contained in the proposed amendment to section 26 of Part III of Schedule I. The proposed changes to section 27 of Part III of Schedule I take the foregoing into account. The amendment to this section would ensure that undertakings in respect of physical works for the processing of nuclear substances with an annual throughput of nuclear substances of less than one petabecquerel (PBq) per year would continue to be exempt from the requirements of the CEA Act. Because of the small and manageable effects of a sealed sources manufacturing facility with a nuclear substances throughput of less than one petabecquerel (PBq) per year, section 27 also proposes that such undertakings continue to be exempt from the application of the CEA Act. It is proposed that in the French version of section 28 of Part III of Schedule I, the words "établissement nucléaire" be replaced by "installation nucléaire." The term "nuclear facility" is currently included in sections 29 and 30 of Part III of Schedule I. Under the NSC Act, the definition of this term now also includes the facilities currently referred to in these sections by means of a reference to subparagraphs 27(c)(i) and (ii). Given the expanded definition of the term "nuclear facility," to minimize duplication the proposed changes to sections 29 and 30 would retain the term "nuclear facility," but would no longer mention the subparagraphs as the facilities referred to in them are now described within the definition. In addition, in order to clarify the intent of paragraph 29(b), it is proposed that the phrase "have been implemented as required in accordance with any timetable established for their implementation in the assessment report" be included at the end of the paragraph. C. Amendments to the Law List Regulations The Law List Regulations prescribe specific provisions of federal statutes and regulations that trigger a federal EA before a licence can be issued or amended. This means that an FA such as the CNSC cannot issue or amend a licence to allow a project to proceed without first ensuring than an EA is conducted. The CNSC's licence-issuing responsibilities are now contained in the NSC Act. The proposed EA triggers in the Law List Regulations are based on subsection 24(2), and on paragraphs 37(2)(c) and 37(2)(d) of the NSC Act. The repeal of the references to the Atomic Energy and Control Regulations and the Uranium and Thorium Mining Regulations in the Law List Regulations, and the proposed referencing of the above paragraphs in the regulations, would continue to cause appropriate project licensing applications to trigger an EA under the CEA Act. D. Amendments to the Comprehensive Study List Regulations The Comprehensive Study List Regulations identify projects that, when triggered under the CEA Act, require a comprehensive study. A comprehensive study is a more extensive EA than a screening. The proposed changes to these regulations consist of modifications to the Interpretation section (section 2 of the regulations), paragraph 2(e) of Part I of the Schedule to the regulations, and section 19 of Part IV of the Schedule to the regulations. In the Interpretation section of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations, it is proposed that the definitions be updated to reflect the terminology contained in the NSC Act and associated regulations. These changes would allow for a thorough understanding of the other proposed amendments to these regulations. By introducing in paragraph 2(e) of the Schedule to the regulations, (which pertains to nuclear facilities in a wildlife area or migratory bird sanctuary), a term from the NSC Act to replace AEC Act equivalents, the change to this paragraph would replicate what currently exists. As a result of the use of terminology and definitions from the NSC Act and its regulations that are equivalent to the terms previously taken from the AEC Act and its regulations, the proposed amendments to section 19 of the Schedule to the Comprehensive Study Regulations replicate, with one minor variation, the existing requirements of this section. The minor variation is the thresholds for radionuclide throughput and inventory in clauses 19(g)(ii)(A) and (B). The thresholds have been adjusted to correspond with the new definition of a Class IB Nuclear Facility, and to ensure consistent application of the CEA Act in respect of nuclear facilities and other licensed operations where nuclear waste is processed. The proposed threshold would result in an insignificant change in the application of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. Alternatives The only feasible alternatives to the proposed regulatory amendments are guidelines or the status quo. A. Guidelines The CNSC's continued application of a federal EA regime for nuclear issues through the development and use of EA guidelines would not be legally binding and would therefore not satisfactorily fulfill the aforementioned objectives of the CEA Act. These objectives can only be achieved if the regulations under the CEA Act are amended. B. Status Quo The status quo would mean that certain licensing decisions of the CNSC would be deemed by the Interpretation Act to be an EA triggers under the CEA Act. To rely on the deeming provisions of the Interpretation Act would lead to much confusion within government and industry, and among members of the public. It is considered preferable to indicate specifically, by means of amendments to the four key regulations under the CEA Act, which nuclear activities are subject to the EA requirements of the CEA Act, and to do so using the terminology that exists in the NSC Act and its regulations. The continued application of the Exclusion List Regulations in the non-nuclear sectors, without the proposed addition of section 2.1 to Part I of Schedule I of these Regulations, would mean that the continuous, unchanged operation of an existing physical work could be subject to an EA when there is only a change in the operator, and a licence is issued or amended merely to allow for such a change. Such an EA requirement after decisions had been originally made to allow for the operation of a physical work would not be in keeping with the purposes of the CEA Act, or the government's commitment to smart regulations. Benefits and Costs The proposed amendments to the four CEA Act regulations would ensure a close replication of the EA regime established under the former AEC Act, and there would not be any significant change in costs to the CNSC, nuclear proponents, or other stakeholders associated with their introduction. EA is concerned with the identification, assessment, and minimization of environmental effects before decisions are made on whether to proceed with a project. At present, a simple change in the operator of a facility in all economic sectors, with no interruption or change in activities or processes, could trigger an EA under the CEA Act. The proposed addition of section 2.1 into Schedule I of the Exclusion List Regulations would eliminate this requirement while still requiring an FA to ensure that environmental effects remain insignificant. There are no additional costs involved in this particular proposal. It would eliminate an unnecessary requirement, and thereby benefit both FAs and new operators taking over the identical continuous operations of existing facilities. Consultation The multi-stakeholder Regulatory Advisory Committee (RAC), chaired by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, has participated in the development of these proposed regulations. The RAC is composed of members of government (federal, provincial and territorial), Aboriginal organizations, environmental organizations, and industry (including the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) and the Mining Association of Canada). The proposed regulations were also reviewed by the staff of the CNSC and other members of the Senior Management Committee on Environmental Assessment, made up of a number of federal departments and agencies, including Environment Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. In general, there was overall support for all the proposed changes to the regulations. The CNA and the Canadian Environmental Network requested that the regulatory changes go beyond the intent of replicating the project assessment regime that previously existed between the AEC Act and the CEA Act. At present, the Agency does not have information to justify a basis for going beyond the scope of the proposed changes. Compliance and Enforcement The CEA Act empowers the Minister of the Environment to provide advice and training to the CNSC and others, to enable them to discharge their responsibilities under the CEA Act and its regulations. Compliance with the proposed amendments would be fostered in two ways. First, the Agency's monitoring program would assess whether the CNSC and other FAs have any specific problems in adhering to the CEA Act and its regulations, as amended. Secondly, the Agency's Regional Offices would help the CNSC and other FAs to exchange information about specific project EAs, thereby assisting them in complying with their EA responsibilities under the CEA Act and its regulations. Mr. Ian Ferguson, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 200 Sacré-Cœur Boulevard, 14th Floor, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, (819) 997-2217. Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to paragraph 59(b) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (see footnote a) , proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Inclusion List Regulations. Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed regulations within 30 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 Peter Sherhols, Director, Policy Analysis, Canadian Environmental Assessement Agency, Fontaine Building, 14th Floor, 200 Sacré-Cœur Boulevard, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3. Ottawa, July 24, 2003
EILEEN BOYD
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE INCLUSION LIST REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS 1. (1) The definitions "prescribed substances" and "scheduled quantity" or "SQ" in section 2 of the Inclusion List Regulations (see footnote 1) are repealed. (2) Section 2 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: "effective dose" has the meaning assigned in subsection 1(1) of the Radiation Protection Regulations; (dose efficace) "exemption quantity" has the meaning assigned in section 1 of the Nuclear Substances and Radiation Devices Regulations; (quantité d'exemption) "nuclear substance" has the meaning assigned in section 2 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act; (substance nucléaire) "unsealed source" has the meaning assigned in section 1 of the Nuclear Substances and Radiation Devices Regulations; (source non scellée) 2. Sections 20 and 21 of the schedule to the Regulations are replaced by the following: 20. The abandonment, disposal or other release into the environment of a nuclear substance, where (a) the nuclear substance is readily removable from and is not distributed throughout a substance, material, device or equipment, and the quantity of the nuclear substance exceeds the exemption quantity in respect of the nuclear substance; or (b) in the case of a nuclear substance that is distributed throughout and is not readily removable from the substance, material, device or equipment, the concentration of the nuclear substance results in an effective dose that exceeds 1 per cent of the effective dose limit set out in column 3 of item 3 of the table to subsection 13(1) of the Radiation Protection Regulations. 3. The portion of section 22 of the schedule to the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: 22. The abandonment or disposal of a substance, material, device or equipment whose surface is contaminated with a nuclear substance that is not readily removable from the surface, where 4. Sections 23 and 24 of the schedule to the Regulations are replaced by the following: 23. Physical activities relating to the possession or use of an unsealed source in a quantity exceeding 1 PBq (1015 Bq). 24. The construction, operation, modification, decommissioning or abandonment of a vehicle, within the meaning of section 2 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, that is equipped with a nuclear reactor. COMING INTO FORCE 5. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered. [31-1-o] Regulations Amending the Comprehensive Study List RegulationsStatutory Authority Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Sponsoring Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency REGULATORY IMPACT For the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, see Regulations Amending the Inclusion List Regulations. Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to paragraph 59(d) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (see footnote b) , proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed regulations within 30 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 Peter Sherhols, Director, Policy Analysis Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Fontaine Building, 14th Floor, 200 Sacré-Cœur Boulevard, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3. Ottawa, July 24, 2003
EILEEN BOYD
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY LIST REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS 1. (1) The definition "établissement nucléaire" in section 2 of the French version of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations (see footnote 2) is repealed. (2) The definition "hazardous waste" in section 2 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: "hazardous waste" has the meaning assigned in subsection 2(1) of the Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes Regulations but does not include nuclear substances; (déchets dangereux) (3) The definition "nuclear facility" in section 2 of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following: "nuclear facility" has the meaning assigned in section 2 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act; (installation nucléaire) (4) Section 2 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: "Class IA nuclear facility" has the meaning assigned in section 1 of the Class I Nuclear Facilities Regulations; (installation nucléaire de catégorie IA) "Class IB nuclear facility" has the meaning assigned in section 1 of the Class I Nuclear Facilities Regulations; (installation nucléaire de catégorie IB) "nuclear substance" has the meaning assigned in section 2 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act; (substance nucléaire) "uranium mill" means a mill as defined in section 1 of the Uranium Mines and Mills Regulations; (usine de concentration d'uranium) "uranium mine" means a mine, as defined in section 1 of the Uranium Mines and Mills Regulations; (mine d'uranium) "waste management system" has the meaning assigned in section 1 of the Uranium Mines and Mills Regulations; (système de gestion des déchets) (5) Section 2 of the French version of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: « installation nucléaire » s'entend au sens de l'article 2 de la Loi sur la sûreté et la réglementation nucléaires. (nuclear facility) 2. Paragraph 2(e) of the schedule to the Regulations is replaced by the following: (e) a nuclear facility; 3. The heading of Part VI of the schedule to the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following: INSTALLATIONS NUCLÉAIRES ET INSTALLATIONS CONNEXES 4. Paragraphs 19(a) to (g) of the schedule to the Regulations are replaced by the following: (a) a uranium mine, a uranium mill or a waste management system any of which is on a site that is not within the boundaries of an existing licensed uranium mine or mill; (b) a uranium mine, a uranium mill or a waste management system any of which is on a site that is within the boundaries of an existing licensed uranium mine or mill, if the proposal involves processes for milling or uranium tailings management that are not authorized under the existing licence; (c) a Class IB nuclear facility for the refining or conversion of uranium that has a uranium production capacity of more than 100 t/a; (d) a Class IA nuclear facility that is a nuclear fission reactor that has a production capacity of more than 25 MW (thermal); (e) a Class IB nuclear facility that is a plant for the production of deuterium or deuterium compounds using hydrogen sulphide that has a production capacity of more than 10 t/a; (f) a Class IB nuclear facility for the processing of irradiated nuclear fuel with an irradiated nuclear fuel input capacity of more than 100 t/a; (g) a Class IB nuclear facility that is on a site that is not within the boundaries of an existing licensed nuclear facility and is for
(ii) the processing or storage of radioactive waste other than irradiated nuclear fuel, where
(B) the activity of the inventory of radioactive material with a half-life greater than one year is more than 1 PBq (1015), or COMING INTO FORCE 5. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered. [31-1-o] S.C. 1992, c. 37 SOR/94-637 S.C. 1992, c. 37 SOR/94-638 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTICE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
