Review of the Environmental Emergency Regulations, 2019

Context

Federal departments and agencies must regularly review their existing regulations, including technical guidance and other associated policies. The goal of the review is to determine the effectiveness of current regulations and minimize the regulatory burden and duplication on businesses (Red Tape Reduction), while maintaining or improving the safety, security, social, health and economic well-being of Canadians and protecting the environment.

About the Environmental Emergency Regulations

The mandate of the Environmental Emergency Regulations (E2 Regulations), under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, aim to:

• protect the environment and the health of Canadians by improving industry’s capacity to plan for and manage environmental emergencies related to chemical accidents
• reduce the frequency and severity of accidental releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

Environment and Climate Change Canada is responsible for administering and enforcing the E2 Regulations, which came into force on November 18, 2003. These Regulations were amended on December 8, 2011, and then repealed and replaced on August 24, 2019. Further amendments to the E2 Regulations may be considered because of this engagement.

Scope

The E2 Regulations require any person who has the charge, management, or control of any of the 249 hazardous substances listed in Schedule 1 to meet specific requirements. For example, an environmental emergency plan must be implemented if specified thresholds for the substance set out in Schedule 1 are exceeded. The E2 Regulations apply to both pure substances and substances contained in a mixture. There are six hazard categories covered under the E2 Regulations:

• aquatically toxic
• combustible
• explosion hazard
• pool fire hazard
• inhalation hazard
• oxidizer that may explode

Changes implemented in 2019

Changes in 2019 clarified the requirements of the legislation and reinforced sound environmental emergency management. New definitions and periodic reporting requirements for facilities, substances and environmental emergency plans were introduced, and 33 more substances were added to the list of regulated substances in Schedule 1, resulting in better protection for Canadians and for the environment.

Summary of requirements

The E2 Regulations require regulated facilities to:

• prepare and implement environmental emergency plans that consider prevention, preparedness, response, and remediation
• identify and assess environmental emergency scenarios at a facility, including off-site impacts
• include environmental and public health and safety concerns in the hazard assessment
• communicate with the public about potential impacts before, during, and after an environmental emergency
• conduct exercises annually and full-scale exercises every five years
• provide a written report of any environmental emergency that has, or may have, an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or that constitutes, or may constitute, a danger to human life or health
• submit notices to ECCC to register compliance with regulatory requirements

However, certain substances and quantities of substances, may be subject to exclusions as stipulated in subsections 2(2) and 3(2) of the E2 Regulations. This could mean that a facility may be excluded fully or partially from the E2 Regulations.

For the complete requirements , you can consult the full legal text of the E2 Regulations.

Sample of regulated industries

Approximately 4000 facilities across Canada have registered under the E2 Regulations reporting system. Some industry sectors regulated by the E2 Regulations include:

• chemical manufacturing
• petroleum and coal product manufacturing
• oil and gas extraction
• utilities (such as electricity) and government
• food manufacturing and agriculture
• plastics and rubber products manufacturing
• general industry
• non-metallic mineral product manufacturing
• paper manufacturing
• fuel dealers and gasoline stations
• exploration and mining

Identified implementation challenges

Since the publication of the E2 Regulations in 2019, some industry stakeholders and non-governmental organizations have identified several implementation challenges that may be considered in future amendments of the E2 Regulations. The following summarizes some of these challenges.

Regulatory duplication

Stakeholders identified duplicative regulatory requirements for chemical accident prevention and preparedness across Canada through Treasury Board’s Targeted Regulatory Review. There are approximately 258 pieces of legislation pertaining to environmental emergencies across Canada. The overlap occurs from a range of different federal, provincial, or territorial environmental emergency legislation that can impact the same industrial sectors. For example, there may be jurisdictional overlap between the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations and the E2 Regulations with respect to loading and offloading hazardous substances at a fixed facility. These scenarios have caused uncertainty among stakeholders about who is the responsible authority and which emergency plan applies.

Reporting burden

Regulatees must submit seven Notices about actions taken as part of their responsibilities under the E2 Regulations.  A Notice under Schedule 2 is submitted when a substance listed on Schedule 1 meets threshold quantities and capacities.  A Notice under Schedule 3 is submitted to provide information on the development of their environmental emergency plan and a Notice under Schedule 4 notifies ECCC that regulatees have met the critical one-year deadline to bring their environmental emergency plan into effect.  To diminish reporting burden, it was suggested that the Notice under Schedule 3 could be eliminated as it serves a limited purpose and some information is duplicated in the Notices under Schedules 3 and 4.

Creating class-based groupings of substances

The E2 Regulations apply to 249 individually listed substances (each with its own unique Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number). This substance-by-substance approach affects stakeholders who manufacture and use complex hydrocarbon mixtures. Reporting every substance in these complex mixtures is a challenging task and has limited value. Stakeholders have requested a class-based grouping of substances for complex mixtures. For example, grouping substances with similar physical-chemical properties into a ‘flammable’ category (e.g., toluene, xylene, benzene) could eliminate reporting each individual substance in a complex mixture.

Eliminating the worst-case scenario

The E2 Regulations require that facilities hold full-scale exercises to simulate how they would respond if an incident impacted the environment outside the boundaries of the facility. Unless there are other more likely scenarios where there may be significant impacts outside the boundaries of the facility, they are required to simulate the worst-case scenario for the full-scale exercise, which is unlikely to happen.

Stakeholders believe that there is little value in conducting full-scale exercises using the worst-case scenario, given the low probability of a worst-case scenario occurring and the limited availability of first responders to participate in such exercises. Stakeholders have suggested that exercises should instead focus on more likely scenarios that would have significant impacts outside the boundaries of a facility. For regulatees, this could reduce the number of full-scale exercises and allow first responders to focus on facilities where there is the greatest risk of environmental impacts.

Providing exclusions for propane in smaller applications such as homes, farms, outfitters

Stakeholders have indicated that two exclusions for propane in the E2 Regulations, namely sections 2(2)(c) and 3(2)(d), are not providing the expected relief for small applications such as residential homes, farms and outfitters. There are significant numbers of residential homes, farms and outfitters that use propane and remain subject to the E2 Regulations. Some of these sites are in remote locations and could require a significant amount of propane to be stored for operational needs given the limitations for refueling during winter. Significant time, money and expertise are needed to develop and implement the required environmental emergency plan, and some owners/operators may have difficulties given their limited knowledge or expertise in hazardous substances and/or risk management of chemicals.

Clarifying what is meant by “bringing into effect” the environmental emergency plan

Under the E2 Regulations, the term ‘bringing into effect’ means implementing the environmental emergency plan. However, this term has caused confusion among industry stakeholders and a lack of clarity for ECCC enforcement officers because there is no obvious and clear way to measure compliance with this obligation. 

Improving public communication

Environmental emergencies resulting from accidental chemical releases do not affect all people in the same way. Vulnerable populations and/or marginalized communities can be impacted by chemical accidents more than other communities. Industry stakeholders and local community associations near fixed facilities have raised concerns about the requirement to communicate with the public before, during and after an emergency. This includes a lack of information about the frequency of public communications and who can access and request facility information. Recently, the Government of Canada has identified vulnerable populations or marginalized communities in three legislative instruments:

• Bill S-5 (Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act)
• Bill C-226 (An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice)
• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

In its preamble, Bill C-226 identified that environmentally hazardous sites, including landfills and polluting industries, are generally found in areas inhabited primarily by members of marginalized communities and that this could be considered a form of racial discrimination.

Since 1995, the Government of Canada has also identified vulnerable populations or marginalized communities in its policy requirements for Gender-Based Plus Analysis. This analysis ensures that federal legislation, policies, programs and other initiatives are responsive, inclusive and reflective of diverse experiences and realities to address inequities and barriers. Discriminatory practices such as restricting access to information and participation in decision-making processes may have resulted in a disproportionate pollution burden for several vulnerable populations. Such populations may include: Indigenous, Black, and other racialized peoples, 2SLGBTQI+ people, women, persons with disabilities, and other marginalized communities such as the very young, seniors, or people who experience structural inequity, poverty or isolation.

Public communication (i.e., informing the local community before, during and after a chemical accident occurs) is already a key element in the E2 Regulations. However, further improving access to information can help vulnerable populations and marginalized communities to fully participate and engage in health and environmental decision-making, and to make informed decisions about their own health and their local environment.

Identifying emergency scenarios and potential impact distances

The E2 Regulations currently identify a primary chemical hazard in Schedule 1 for each of the 249 substances listed, like explosive, combustible, aquatic toxic or flammable. This primary chemical hazard is meant to inform regulatees which hazard was used to establish the reporting thresholds in Schedule 1 and to ensure exercising cycles occurred for the primary chemical hazard for a listed substance.

However, regulatees are also required to identify scenarios and establish impact distances for all chemical hazards of a substance that would have potential impacts outside the facility boundaries. For example, a flammable liquid identified as an explosion hazard in Schedule 1 can also pose an aquatic toxic hazard to nearby water bodies. The E2 Regulations require that the environmental emergency plan contain a description of both scenarios and how their risks will be managed. Some regulatees have informed ECCC that this has been unclear and, as a result, they only identified and exercised scenarios based on the primary chemical hazard.

Questions to consider when providing your feedback

• What, if any, are your concerns with the mandate and scope of the E2 Regulations?
• What challenges have you faced in implementing the E2 Regulations? How do these challenges affect your ability to meet any of the regulatory requirements (for example, maintenance programs, environmental emergency plans, reporting, exercises, public notifications)?
• Do the E2 Regulations prevent using equipment or implementing processes that are industry best practices for managing hazardous substances and keeping them from being released into the environment? If so, which equipment or processes could be included in future amendments?
• How can we streamline requirements, such as reporting, conducting exercises or developing E2 plans, for small businesses without jeopardizing the environment or human health?
• Using the E2 Regulations Online Reporting System is mandatory. What improvements could make it more user-friendly?

Share your comments by February 13, 2026 to: ue-e2@ec.gc.ca.

To learn how we will protect your privacy during this engagement, please carefully review our privacy statement.