| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Vol. 141, No. 23 — June 9, 2007 Regulations Amending the Environmental Emergency RegulationsStatutory authority Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 Sponsoring department Department of the Environment REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT (This statement is not part of the Regulations.) Description Purpose The proposed Regulations Amending the Environmental Emergency Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "proposed Amendments"), pursuant to subsection 200(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999), would add to the List of Substances in Schedule 1 of the Environmental Emergency Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") those CEPA toxic substances that were not evaluated prior to the implementation of the Regulations, as well as other substances of concern. The other substances of concern, which are also considered to pose an unacceptable level of risk from their release, would require environmental emergency planning. At the time of publication of the Regulations, Environment Canada committed to evaluate 49 CEPA toxic substances. Subsequently, three other substances of concern were proposed by some key stakeholders to be considered for addition to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. The evaluations of the substances have been completed and, as a result, 34 substances are proposed to be added to the Regulations. In addition, the proposed Amendments would further clarify the Regulations by addressing matters related to the interpretation of certain provisions of the regulatory text. The proposed Amendments would come into effect on the day they are registered. Background On September 10, 2003, the Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, and came into force on November 18, 2003. The Regulations apply to any person who owns or has the charge, management or control of i) a listed substance at or above the quantity set out in column 3 of Schedule 1 (hereinafter referred to as threshold quantity) at any time during a calendar year, or ii) a listed substance that is stored in a container that has a maximum capacity equal to or exceeding the threshold quantity. The person must submit a notice to the Minister containing the information requested in Schedule 2, such as information on the maximum expected quantity of a listed substance at any time during the calendar year, along with the place or facility location and the maximum capacity of the largest container in which the listed substance is stored. The notice must be submitted within 90 days of the coming into force of the Regulations or of the date the person has first met one of the two conditions mentioned above. At the time of the publication of the Regulations, Environment Canada made a commitment to stakeholders to evaluate 49 CEPA toxic substances. Some of these CEPA toxic substances are "classes of substances" which include several sub-compounds; consequently, a total of 94 substances were evaluated for possible inclusion in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Based on the results of the evaluation of these substances, 31 substances and their respective thresholds are being proposed for addition to Schedule 1. In addition, three other substances of concern, acetic acid, ammonium nitrate and styrene were identified by the regulated community, who requested that these substances be evaluated for possible addition to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Environment Canada has completed its evaluation and, based on the outcome, is also proposing the addition of these three substances to Schedule 1. Therefore, a total of 34 substances and their respective thresholds are being proposed for addition to Schedule 1. Proposed Amendments Changes proposed to the Regulations are based on the implementation experience of Environment Canada and other stakeholders since the Regulations came into force in 2003. These proposed Amendments would continue to protect the environment and human life and health from hazardous chemicals; increase the clarity of the regulatory text; and reduce the administrative burden for some regulatees. The proposed Amendments retain the basic intent and scope of the Regulations. As part of the proposed Amendments, a new part, Part 3, is being added to cover substances which are not covered by the current Parts 1 and 2. The additional 34 substances would be added to various parts of Schedule 1 of the Regulations in the following manner: two substances, styrene and ammonium nitrate both in liquid and solid form, would be added to Part 1 because of their potential to explode; three substances, acetic acid, dichloromethane and sulphur hexafluoride, would be added to Part 2 because of their inhalation toxicity. The remaining 29 substances would be added to the new Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations because of either their carcinogenicity or aquatic toxicity. New provisions proposed would specify that quantities of ammonia anhydrous and ammonia solution used as an agricultural nutrient by farmers would no longer be covered by the Regulations. Furthermore, quantities of propane in storage containers that have a maximum capacity of less than 10 t and that are located at a distance of at least 360 m from the property limit on which they are located would not have to be included in the calculation of the total quantity at the facility or place for the purposes of the Regulations. Environment Canada would encourage voluntary evaluation and management of risks associated with these substances in such situations through the "Implementation Guidelines for Part 8 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 — Environmental Emergency Plans" (hereinafter referred to as the "guidelines") and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Environmental Farm Plans. In addition, a new provision is being proposed for closed or decommissioned facilities or places, as the Regulations do not currently have a mechanism in place to address them. The new provision would require the submission of a notice to the Minister by a person, as defined in subsection 3(1) of the Regulations, at least 30 days before a place or facility is being closed or decommissioned. This information would allow Environment Canada to track and ensure effective plans are in place to manage the substance before the facilities or places are abandoned. The proposed Amendments would further clarify that the exclusion for a substance that is subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 applies not only to the calculation of quantities, but to all of the provisions of the Regulations, including the preparation of environmental emergency plans, as well as the notification and reporting requirements of section 201 of CEPA 1999. However, such regulated substances that are being loaded or unloaded at fixed places or facilities would remain subject to the requirements of the Regulations. The proposed Amendments would clarify that a substance that is identified in Schedule 1 of the Regulations and that is a component of natural gas in its gaseous form is not a substance for the purposes of section 193 of CEPA 1999. It is therefore not subject to the notification and reporting obligations of section 201 of CEPA 1999. The Regulations do not currently include any provision for excluding solids containing regulated substances whose release is unlikely to create an environmental emergency. A new provision, primarily focused on mining, is being proposed to exclude quantities of the substance that are found in slag, waste rock in tailings, ores, and ore concentrates from the requirements of the Regulations. Currently, all mixtures composed of a substance at or above the concentration listed in Schedule 1 of the Regulations are subject to the obligations of section 201 of CEPA 1999. Section 201 of CEPA 1999 requires that, when an environmental emergency occurs, in respect of a listed substance under the Regulations, notification shall be made as soon as possible in the circumstances, to an enforcement officer or any other person designated pursuant to the Regulations. Furthermore, all reasonable emergency measures shall be taken and a reasonable effort shall be made to notify any member of the public whom may be adversely affected by the environmental emergency. This requirement had resulted in notification and reporting of releases of mixtures that are not regulated under the Regulations. With the proposed Amendments, mixtures of substances listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations that have either a flash point equal to or greater than 23°C or a boiling point equal to or greater than 35°C would not be considered as substances for the purposes of section 193 of CEPA 1999. Consequently, the notification and reporting obligations of section 201 of CEPA 1999 would not apply to those substances. Schedule 1 of the Regulations provides, in column 1, the United Nations (UN) number, along with the name and Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number for a specific substance. The proposed Amendments would remove the UN numbers from Schedule 1 since they are provided for reference purposes only. However, the UN numbers would still be kept in the guidelines. In addition to the above changes, other changes are being proposed to improve clarity of certain provisions of the Regulations.
Sectors profile and uses A number of sectors producing or using any of the 34 substances, such as the petrochemicals, agriculture, metal mining and smelting, propane, specialty chemicals and dry cleaning sectors, are expected to be subject to the proposed Amendments. However, impacts are expected in two main sectors: petrochemicals and agriculture. Petrochemicals Petrochemicals are a category of organic chemicals derived principally from natural gas liquids obtained from natural gas processing plants, and naphtha and light gas oil obtained from oil refineries. Canada's petrochemical plants are concentrated in Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. These three provinces account for about 94% of producing plants. Most of the recent growth in the industry has occurred in Alberta, based almost exclusively on natural gas feed-stocks. On the basis of shipments, 54% of the output originates in Alberta. The Canadian petrochemical industry had shipments of $4.8 billion in 2003, and employed more than 1 400 people in 16 manufacturing establishments. (see footnote 1) The petrochemical sector would most likely be affected by the addition of styrene to Schedule 1. Styrene, a clear, colourless liquid derived from petroleum and natural gas by-products, is one of the main petrochemicals productions of the sector and represents 11% of total production in 2005. Styrene helps create plastic materials used in thousands of strong, flexible, and lightweight products that are part of our day-to-day life. However, styrene also occurs in the environment and is a natural component of many common foods, such as coffee, strawberries and cinnamon. In 2003, the two major manufacturers of styrene in Canada each produced quantities exceeding 400 kt. In Canada, the total domestic demand of styrene and its by-products totalled 236 kt, and export totalled 573 kt in 2003. Agriculture The Canadian (primary) agricultural sector is an important sector of the economy contributing 2.1% of the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and accounted for 1.9% of total employment in 2003. This sector provides the inputs and raw materials for a number of related agricultural and agri-food sub-sectors. In 2001, 41 million hectares of land was used for field crops with more than 172 000 farms in activity. About 76% of these farms applied fertilizers in their agricultural production. Nitrogen-based fertilizers, such as ammonium nitrate, are commonly used in crop production. The agricultural sector, more specifically the farmers, would be impacted by the proposed Amendments due to the addition of ammonium nitrate to Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Most of the ammonium nitrate produced in Canada is used in the agricultural sector, either for direct soil application or for production of nitrogen solution. From July 2000 to June 2001, 224 431 t of ammonium nitrate were applied to field crops. (see footnote 2) Industrial uses for ammonium nitrate, dominated by use as explosives, accounts for approximately one-quarter of the total market. Ammonium nitrate is distributed mainly by three routes: retail operations, farm co-operatives and grain companies. In 1996, the Canadian nameplate capacity for ammonium nitrate was 1 230 kt with a total Canadian supply of 1 108 kt. However, all domestic manufacturing of ammonium nitrate in the solid form for agricultural purposes has ceased as of summer 2006. Alternatives Status quo The status quo was examined but was rejected because it would not reduce the potential risks to the environment and to human life from the release of 31 CEPA toxic substances and three other substances of concern into the environment. This option would also not allow the Department to deliver on its commitment to amend the Regulations to list only those remaining CEPA toxic substances and other substances of concern, which pose an environmental emergency risk, once the evaluations were completed. In addition, this option would not improve the clarity of some of the provisions of the Regulations or reduce the administrative burden currently imposed on some of the regulatees. Voluntary approach The Regulations were originally drafted in response to the federal government's security agenda. A threat and risk evaluation of potential releases of hazardous substances was performed which indicated that places or facilities that produce, use or store these substances above the threshold quantity pose a significant risk to public health, safety and the environment. Though environmental emergency planning could be administered voluntarily or through private sector associations, the potential risk to the environment and to human health and life in the event of a release is too severe to be left to voluntary measures. Due to the nature of the potential impacts, voluntary measures would not be adequate to achieve the required level of compliance with what would be needed to protect Canadians and the environment. For these reasons, voluntary measures were deemed inappropriate and were rejected, as they would not meet the Government's environmental and security agendas. Amendments to the Regulations This alternative was considered to be the most appropriate, since it would allow the Department to deliver on the commitment to address the 49 CEPA toxic substances and other substances of concern once their evaluations were completed. The addition of the 34 hazardous substances to the regulated list would improve the level of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery relating to environmental emergencies at places or facilities that store any of these substances in quantities and concentrations at or above the specified thresholds, thereby minimizing the impact on the environment and on human health and life. In addition, the proposed Amendments would clarify certain provisions of the Regulations so that the regulated community may better understand the requirements of the Regulations. Finally, the proposed Amendments would no longer require notification and reporting for mixtures not captured by the Regulations. Benefits and costs Benefits The proposed Amendments would enhance the protection of the environment and of human life and health by promoting the prevention, preparedness, response and recovery related to environmental emergencies at places or facilities, from the release of flammable or other hazardous substances. By requiring regulated places or facilities to put in place an environmental emergency plan, the Regulations bring an immediate benefit of enhancing the safety of the environment and of all Canadians surrounding these places or facilities in the event of an environmental emergency. The emergency plan would allow for less disruption to the activities and associated businesses of the surrounding community. Many benefits would be realized in terms of lives saved, minimization of destruction to property and reduction of impact on the environment. Since these are difficult to quantify, the analysis of benefits is essentially qualitative. Environment, health and safety benefit An environmental emergency plan would allow places or facilities to prevent or react quickly in the event of an environmental emergency due to the release of the substances proposed for listing in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. It would also help to minimize the impact on the environment, including air, water, soil, and biodiversity. The recovery rate would also be faster and the costs associated with any required remediation would be reduced, since resources for clean-up could be mobilized immediately following the event. The listing of these substances and the development and implementation of the environmental emergency plans would also provide indirect health benefits, such as human life saved or injuries reduced or eliminated, both within and surrounding the place or facility, and avoided health costs from minimized acute exposure to those toxic, flammable and hazardous substances. Benefit to the regulated community The proposed changes to provisions of the Regulations would provide additional benefits to the agricultural sector. Farmers using anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution as an agricultural nutrient would be relieved of the administrative burden imposed by the Regulations. Therefore, unless they have other regulated substances at the facility or place, the farmers would no longer be affected by the Regulations. Farmers and any other person who owns or has the charge, management or control of propane in a container with a maximum capacity of less than 10 t and that is located at a distance of at least 360 m from the property limit on which it is located would benefit from the proposed propane provision. These changes would substantially decrease the number of regulatees that need to notify the Minister and prepare an environmental emergency plan under the Regulations. For example, the number of those who have already registered for propane would decrease by approximately 400. A number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) may also benefit from this provision. These increased benefits would be translated in the form of a reduction in the administrative burden on regulatees, as they would no longer be covered by the Regulations. No significant impact is expected for the mining industry, because the explosive grade ammonium nitrate is already subject to control and planning requirements for safety reasons and, hence, the existing emergency plans would likely only need to be slightly modified to comply with the proposed Amendments. The addition of styrene would affect approximately 10 petrochemical companies throughout Canada, most of which are located in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. The addition of such substances increases public safety by requiring that an environmental emergency plan be put in place, the purpose of which is to minimize the impact on workers, the public and the environment in the event of an environmental emergency. One of the key indirect benefits of the Regulations has been that places or facilities have on numerous occasions decided to substitute hazardous substances at the facility or place with inherently safer substances and/or reduce the size of the single largest container at the facility or place. Such actions result in substantially reducing the associated risks both on- and off-site. Additional benefits to regulatees would be in terms of their public image, as the Regulations encourage dialogue between stakeholders and the creation of co-operative relationships before the occurrence of any environmental emergency. Additional benefits to the regulated community would occur as a result of further clarifying the regulatory text. Benefit to the Government The proposed Amendments would lead to a reduction in the administrative burden on Government, as a result of reduced notification and reporting requirements under section 201 of CEPA 1999. Based on information supplied by the propane and agriculture industries in 2005, there are an estimated several thousand SMEs, primarily farmers, who would no longer be covered by the Regulations. However, the proposed Amendments, particularly those related to the storage of propane and the use of anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution as an agricultural nutrient by farmers, are expected to lower the administrative burden on Government, as some of these SMEs would no longer be subject to the Regulations. As a consequence, the Government would not have to collect the required information or target further compliance promotion. In addition, there would be savings on costs to enforcement with regards to SMEs fraction of the regulated community. The additional benefits also include a decrease in the costs associated with the notification and reporting system, as there is a reduced notification and reporting requirement for mixtures not captured under the Regulations with respect to section 201 of CEPA 1999. Costs Cost to the regulated community A number of places or facilities from a wide cross-section of sectors are expected to be impacted by the proposed Amendments. However, since many places or facilities are already subject to the Regulations or other regulations, it is estimated that the number of places or facilities that would be required to take action under the proposed Amendments, as a result of the addition of the 34 substances, would range approximately between 50 and 360. The number of facilities or places is based on known users of the substances; however, details on the quantities of the substances that are stored, which are key in determining whether a place or facility would be subject to the Regulations, are to a large degree unknown, hence the wide range for the number of facilities or places that may be affected. The upper limit reflects the case where all identified places or facilities would be required to take action under the proposed Amendments and would need to develop or amend an emergency plan. The proposed Amendments are not expected to have a major impact on those places or facilities that already have an environmental emergency plan in place at the place or facility for a substance already regulated under the Regulations. In such cases, those companies may have lower incremental cost associated with compliance with the requirements of the proposed Amendments, as the previous environmental emergency plan can likely be used as is or be easily modified to include the newly regulated substance. For example, equipment, emergency contacts and training, may be the same regardless of the substance being addressed. The cost of compliance can be expressed as the time and resources required to prepare or amend, test and implement an environmental emergency plan and complete the required notices. Due to the diversity of the operations at places or facilities subject to the Regulations, and the nature of environmental emergency planning (e.g. an environmental emergency plan is facility- or place-specific), it is difficult to estimate accurately the cost for regulatees to comply with the Regulations. However, based on the range of places or facilities reported above, it is estimated that the compliance costs relating to the development of new plans or the amendment of existing plans would range between $770,000 and $5,300,000. The higher cost reflects the case where all identified places or facilities would be required to take action under the proposed Amendments and would need to develop or amend an emergency plan. Costs to the Government Costs to the Government would consist of costs associated with administration, compliance promotion, and enforcement activities that would be incurred in implementing the proposed Amendments. Compliance promotion activities are intended to encourage the regulated community to come into compliance with the proposed Amendments and could include mailing out the proposed Amendments, answering inquiries and developing and distributing promotional materials explaining the proposed Amendments (e.g. fact sheet, Web site material). The overall additional cost to Government due to the addition of the 34 substances is estimated to be around $100,000. No additional enforcement costs are expected as a result of these proposed Amendments. Net benefit The proposed Amendments are expected to bring important benefits to society at large in terms of improved safety and security, reduced environmental damage, increased protection for property, and reduction in human health impact and death following a release. Given the level of costs expected to be incurred by affected parties to develop or update emergency plans, notify and report to Environment Canada and, given the expected reduction in environmental and health impacts and death, it is expected that the benefits to society at large would exceed the cost. There would be additional benefits to the environment and society as a result of the new provision requiring the submission of a notice to the Minister when a regulated place or facility is being permanently closed or decommissioned. The identification of closed or decommissioned facilities or places would allow federal, provincial and territorial governments to monitor the facility or place and, if necessary, ensure that the risks continue to be effectively managed through intergovernmental fora in place, such as the Regional Environmental Emergency Teams (REET), thus decreasing the potential environmental and health impacts associated with such facilities or places. Competitiveness Since these proposed Amendments do not entail a change in process, product reformulation or technological change, it is anticipated that the proposed Amendments would have minimal or negligible impact on the international competitiveness of Canadian firms or sectors producing or using the substances. Consultation Information sessions were held after the publication of the Regulations in Part II of the Canada Gazette to address stakeholder concerns. Environment Canada has informed the governments of the provinces and territories through the CEPA National Advisory Committee about the proposed Amendments. In addition, Environment Canada's intention to publish these proposed Amendments was presented to industry, provinces, territories and other key stakeholders as part of a consultations package on the proposed Amendments that was circulated to our consultations distribution list in July 2005. A multi-stakeholder group, developed through consultations on the Regulations, provided advice to Environment Canada during the development of the proposed Amendments. Members of the multi-stakeholder group included
During the consultations, there was broad agreement among stakeholders on the proposed Amendments. Concerns that were raised by stakeholders include the following:
Compliance and enforcement Since the proposed Amendments would be made under CEPA 1999, enforcement officers would, when verifying compliance with the Regulations, apply the Compliance and Enforcement Policy implemented for CEPA 1999. The Policy sets out the range of possible responses to violations, such as 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 would 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 would choose the appropriate enforcement action based on the following factors:
Asit Hazra
Markes Cormier Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 332(1) (see footnote a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (see footnote b), that the Governor in Council proposes, pursuant to subsection 200(1) of that Act, to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Environmental Emergency Regulations. Any person may, within 60 days after the date of 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 addressed to The Manager, Prevention and Recovery Section, Environmental Emergencies Division, Environmental Protection Operations Directorate, Department of the Environment, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3. A person who provides information to the Minister of the Environment may submit with the information a request for confidentiality under section 313 of that Act. Ottawa, May 31, 2007
MARY O'NEILL REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS 1. Section 2 of the Environmental Emergency Regulations (see footnote 3) is replaced by the following: 2. For the purposes of the definition "substance" in section 193 of the Act, the list of substances consists of the substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 1 in their pure form or in a mixture having a concentration equal to or greater than the applicable concentration set out in column 2 but does not include (a) a substance set out in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 that is a component of a mixture having a flash point equal to or greater than 23°C or a boiling point equal to or greater than 35°C; (b) a substance set out in column 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 when the substance is a gas or a liquid and in a mixture and the partial pressure of the substance is equal to or less than 10 mm of mercury; (c) a substance set out in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 that is a component of natural gas in its gaseous form; and (d) a substance that is subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, unless they are being loaded or unloaded at a facility. 2. (1) Paragraph 3(2)(d) of the Regulations is repealed. (2) Paragraphs 3(2)(f) to (h) of the Regulations are replaced by the following: (f) quantities of the substance that are found in slag, waste rock in tailings, ores and ore concentrates; (g) quantities of anhydrous ammonia and ammonia solution set out in column 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 and bearing CAS registry number 7664-41-7, that are stored by a farmer for the purposes of being used as an agricultural nutrient; and (h) the quantity of propane set out in column 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 bearing CAS registry number 74-98-6 that is in a storage container that has a maximum capacity of less than 10 t and is located at a distance of at least 360 m from the property limit on which it is located. (3) Section 3 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (5): (5.1) A person who intends to permanently close or decommission a facility must notify the Minister at least 30 days before the closure or decommissioning of the facility and indicate the measures intended to manage the substance. 3. Subsection 4(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c): (d) if the substance is set out in column 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 1, and (i) the maximum expected quantity of the substance that was reported under paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 2 is equal to or exceeds the quantity set out in column 3 of Schedule 1 for that substance, and (ii) the substance is in a storage container that has a maximum capacity equal to or exceeding the quantity set out in column 3 of Schedule 1 for that substance. 4. Subsection 5(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (2) At the same time as the person submits the notice under subsection (1), the person shall submit to the Minister, in the form set out in Schedule 3, a certification that the information contained in the notice is accurate and complete, signed by the person or a duly authorized representative. 5. Subsection 6(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 6. (1) The person referred to in subsection 5(1) must update and test the environmental emergency plan at least once a calendar year to ensure that the plan continues to meet the requirements of subsections 4(2) and (3). 6. Section 9 of the Regulations is repealed. 7. Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the schedule set out in the schedule to these Regulations. 8. Schedule 2 to the Regulations is amended by replacing the reference "(Subsections 3(1) and (4) and subparagraphs 4(1)(a)(i) and (c)(i))" after the heading "SCHEDULE 2" with the reference "(Subsections 3(1) and (4) and subparagraphs 4(1)(a)(i), (c)(i) and (d)(i))". 9. Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (a) description of the place or the facility name (if applicable), civic address and location by latitude and longitude; and 10. Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 4 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (a) description of the place or the facility name (if applicable), civic address and location by latitude and longitude; and 11. Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 5 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (a) description of the place or the facility name (if applicable), civic address and location by latitude and longitude; and 12. Schedule 6 to the Regulations is repealed. COMING INTO FORCE 13. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
SCHEDULE
SCHEDULE 1 LIST OF SUBSTANCES PART 1 SUBSTANCES LIKELY TO EXPLODE
PART 2 SUBSTANCES HAZARDOUS WHEN INHALED
PART 3 OTHER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Note: The percentage concentration in column 2 of this Schedule is the percentage concentration based on the proportion of the weight of the substance to the weight of the mixture. [23-1-o] Source: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inchemicals-chimiques.nsf/en/bt01135e.html#2 Fertilizer and Pesticide Management in Canada, 2004, Vol. 1, No. 3, Statistics Canada. S.C. 2004, c. 15, s. 31 S.C. 1999, c. 33 SOR/2003-307 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTICE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
