4. Background Studies and Reports

As summarized in this section, there have been several previous studies in Canada regarding transboundary waste movements. For the current project, attempts were made to build upon this past work through a survey of provincial environmental ministries, major urban centres, etc. (see Section 2 and Appendix C) as well as through interactive stakeholder consultation sessions (see Appendix D).

As noted herein, regulatory requirements governing waste handling, transport and disposal both domestically as well as in importing countries, dictate the basic legislative framework in which the waste management industry operates.

A study entitled "Export of Solid Non-Hazardous Waste from Ontario" was prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Environment (and Energy) in October 1993 to assess Ontario's progress toward provincial waste diversion targets and determine the significance of waste export activities. The study used data provided by the U.S. Customs Service, private waste management industry and waste management officials in Ontario and the U.S., as well as from a survey of border crossing movements.

The study determined that approximately 1.3 million tonnes of solid non-hazardous wastes were exported from Ontario to disposal (landfill and incineration) facilities in the U.S. during 1992. Metropolitan Toronto and the Regions of Peel, Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth reported the most activity in this regard. Further, the identified exported wastes were found to be mainly industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) wastes collected by private haulers. Construction and demolition material was considered to have made up a significant proportion of the total waste exports.

Ontario waste exports were identified as going to sites in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan and, to a lesser extent, Indiana and (possibly) Maine. The three major waste management firms involved in waste export were identified as Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), Waste Management Inc. (WMI) and Integrated Waste Services (IWS). Factors contributing to the waste export activities were considered to include:

While it was recognized that there was no single trigger point at which the private waste management industry would return waste flows to Ontario's municipal landfills, it was suggested at that time that should tipping fees at these sites drop to a $80 to $90 per tonne range, waste exports would be nearly eliminated.

With regards to information sources, while U.S. Customs was identified as the only agency which consistently collected data on transboundary movements, comprehensive data was not available as exported waste loads were generally assigned a dollar value below that for the reporting of trade data ($1,250/load). For the border crossing survey, visual estimates based on probable truck types only was conducted.

While some of the border states monitored out-of-state movements, two of the larger recipients for provincial refuse (New York and Michigan) had only general knowledge in this regard. Data from Ontario municipalities was generally only useful for residential (as opposed to IC&I) waste and it was noted that IC&I wastes constituted the majority of refuse exports. Private sector operators (Canadian and American) were typically not forthcoming with useful information.

As noted elsewhere in this report, similar limitations on data sources were also encountered in this study.

On February 24, 1994 the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) held a Waste Export Forum to promote a discussion of the impacts of waste export upon waste diversion activities. The forty-five attendees included representatives from all levels of the public sector, the waste management industry, academics, consultants, and environmental non-governmental organizations.

One of the conclusions reached at the forum was that the export of solid waste to the U.S. was having a negative impact on the development of 3Rs industries in Ontario. It was noted that

waste diversion facilities which were established based on the expectation that sufficient quantities of materials would be available to sustain their operations were in some cases being impacted by waste export at lower prices.

In this respect, it was further noted that the former Ontario Environment (and Energy) Minister Mr. Bud Wildman had asked the federal government to impose an export tax on all international shipments of waste. This was proposed as an interim measure until CEPA was amended to give the federal government legislative authority to regulate transboundary shipments in the longer term. Strong support in the U.S. to provide state and local governments with tools to exercise greater control over the movement of out-of-state waste was also recognized.

Forum participants also felt that the delay by Ontario in passing waste reduction regulations created uncertainty leading to reduced levels of investment in 3Rs infrastructure. Immediate implementation of the waste reduction regulations pertaining to the IC&I sector was suggested (these regulations became law in March, 1994).

No consensus was reached concerning possible statutory mechanisms available to the province, the federal government or the U.S. government to "close the border" as well as the impact of GATT, FTA or NAFTA on any proposed action in this regard. There was also no agreement whether waste export was a practice which could or should be absolutely curtailed or the extent to which landfill bans could ensure the diversion of recyclable materials. Further, no consensus emerged as to the impact of landfill operations on host communities or the question as to whether local responsibility for waste or economic factors should be the primary concern with respect to waste disposal.

A report entitled "Study of the Transboundary Movement of Waste Into/Out of Canada" and submitted to Environment Canada in May 1995 examined the nature and impacts of the transboundary movement of wastes between Canada and other countries (primarily the U.S.). The report focused on non-hazardous solid waste, but also looked at hazardous and liquid industrial waste and selected categories of recyclables. The report contained four main elements: an estimate of Canadian waste import and export quantities (for selected streams); a review of the economic and employment impacts of these movements; a description of four policy options for managing the movement of non-hazardous solid waste; and, an overview of existing controls.

The report identified four key aspects to the flow of waste materials into and out of Canada:

The report also noted the influence of vertically-integrated multinational waste management companies which tended to transport materials to their own disposal, recycling, treatment and incineration sites outside Canada. The estimated transboundary movements of selected waste material streams into and out of Canada in 1992 were summarized as shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 - Estimated Transboundary Movements of Selected Material Streams (1992)
Exports
(Tonnes)
Imports
(Tonnes)
Hazardous Waste* 230 000 130 000
Scrap Metals 1 300 000 1 350 000
Recyclable Paper Fibres 234 000 1 205 000
Recyclable Plastics & Glass 56 000 39 000
Solid Waste for Disposal 1 300 000

* for disposal, recycling and incineration

Four potential management options for Canadian non-hazardous solid waste imports/exports were briefly described in the report, along with the likely impacts of each option. Discussed in more detail in Appendix E, the management options were as follows:

  1. No Controls on Waste Imports/Exports - this option implied that the federal government would take no further action toward the implementation of policies or regulations affecting transboundary movements. In effect, the flow of NHW between the U.S. and Canada would be kept as open as possible, with no efforts made to monitor shipments or impose conditions on waste haulers or disposal sites;
  2. Increased Regulatory Management Mechanisms - in this option, while the federal government would take no action to restrict or interrupt transboundary movements of NHW, they would impose controls and conditions to monitor waste flows and encourage disposal in environmentally safe facilities;
  3. Economic Measures - instruments such as taxes, fees, levies or surcharges were suggested to be used to increase the cost of importing or exporting NHW. Assuming such charges were sufficient to influence the decisions of waste generators and haulers, they would function as an economic incentive encouraging the establishment of waste facilities on either side of the border. They also offered the potential to raise revenues for regulatory agencies; and
  4. Import/Export Bans and Restrictions - such actions would prohibit shipments of NHW to or from a particular jurisdiction. As described, they would apply generally or more narrowly to certain types of NHW, under certain conditions and/or from designated sources. Bans and restrictions were viewed to represent the strongest option available.

As noted in the report, it was not the intention to draw conclusions regarding preferred control options for Canadian waste imports and exports. The report stated, however, that the scale of the economic value and employment impacts involved in this activity and the inter-relationships among the various waste streams suggest that care should be exercised in examining significant changes to current practices/regulations.

A pilot voluntary notification/reporting system for the transboundary movements of NHW was put into place by Environment Canada in 1995. This interim initiative was to form the basis for the subsequent development of associated regulations and a permanent notification system, in a manner similar to that for the Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes. Intended primarily to be carried out in the 1995 calendar year, it was also contemplated that the voluntary notification system might continue (possibly with improvements) into 1996, and be expanded across the country.

Development of the pilot voluntary system commenced with consultation by Environment Canada with various federal, provincial and territorial agencies as well as with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A working group composed of representatives from the Ontario Waste Management Association, the Ontario Ministry of Environment (and Energy), Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Environment Canada, as well as several private sector waste management firms was struck in 1994. This group met on several occasions throughout that year to both solicit volunteer waste management firms for the pilot study and to establish appropriate notification (reporting) procedures.

Several companies, all Ontario-based, were invited to participate in the voluntary notification exercise. Quarterly reporting forms were prepared for pre-notification and post-notification activities. The pre-notification forms were meant to provide details on shipping and receiving facilities on a general basis only (as forecasting shipments to the U.S. was considered difficult due to the volatility of the market). The post-notification forms were targeted to the identification of actual waste quantities shipped and the specific receiving destinations.

Throughout the course of the pilot program in 1995, only very limited pre-notification reporting was provided to Environment Canada by five firms. No company consistently provided data for all quarters of the year. Only two of the five companies further reported any waste quantities shipped (via submitted post notification forms) and, again, consistent reporting for the entire year was not forthcoming. In all, only approximately 40 000 tonnes of transboundary NHW waste exports were captured in the voluntary reporting exercise.

Chapter 4 of the Auditor General of Canada's April 1997 Report was entitled "Control of the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste". This report dealt with the results of an audit conducted by the Auditor General to determine whether Environment Canada, in co-ordination with other federal departments and the provinces, had established an effective and comprehensive regime to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, consistent with Canada's international commitments and obligations to ensure environmentally sound and efficient management of such wastes. A key focus of the audit was to determine the extent to which Environment Canada promoted and monitored compliance and took appropriate enforcement action.

The Auditor General found that while Environment Canada had made a good start in compliance promotion activities and leading/establishing an effective and comprehensive regime to monitor and control transboundary movements of hazardous waste, several deficiencies existed. A lack of necessary capacity for proactive prevention of illegal shipments and limited enforcement actions were two of the principal concerns noted.

The Auditor General's report, while focused on hazardous waste imports and exports, is also instructive for the implementation of NHW regulations. Depending on the control mechanisms ultimately adopted by Environment Canada for NHW imports and exports, many of the same monitoring, compliance and enforcement issues may arise. At the same time, it is recognized that there are potentially significant differences between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes and the export and import businesses pertaining to them.

For example, as compared to NHW, there are more significant monetary incentives for illegal traffic in hazardous wastes. The report noted that the cost of processing a legal truckload of hazardous waste could range from $300 to $1,200 a tonne. The disposal of a truckload of such waste, typically 22 metric tonnes, might easily cost ten thousand dollars or more. There are also costs for liability insurance and brokerage, and an approximate 35 to 40 day waiting period for completion of the required paperwork (implementation of a control scheme for NHW may introduce similar issues for NHW imports and exports). These incentives for illegal traffic were exacerbated by a noted low chance of detection, and of receiving administrative, civil or criminal sanctions.

Difficulties in the inspection and effective testing of waste, an especially onerous issue with hazardous materials, was also dealt with at length in the Auditor General's Report. Definitional concerns, encompassing a significant variety of substances, pointed to the need for harmonization between federal and provincial protocols and for supportive revisions to CEPA. Unique tariff numbers were recommended as was a more effective management strategy addressing the frequency of sampling, sampling protocols, access to testing facilities, etc.

The Report also noted that some enforcement actions involving the illegal traffic of hazardous waste had been stayed or not proceeded with, on the grounds of difficulties stemming from the definitions used in CEPA and the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste Regulations. Few charges had been laid and even fewer convictions obtained.

Areas of low compliance were noted for both exports and imports, particularly with the regulatory provisions for manifests (28% compliance for exports; 53% for imports) and certificates of disposal/recycling (67% compliance for exports; 62% for imports). Manifesting requirements include the submission of various copies of the documents. In many cases, Environment Canada received either the consignor or the consignee manifest copy, but not both.

It should be noted that since the issuance of the Auditor General report, compliance rates have significantly increased in response to increased effort by Environment Canada staff in this regard. The Auditor General released a two-year review of the 1997 audit in May 2000.

A further study prepared for Environment Canada entitled "Assessment of Canadian Trade in Wastes/Recyclables, 1988-1995" and dated July 1997 was also reviewed as background for this project. This document focused on the quantities and values of imports and exports of wastes, as reported in Canada's trade statistics database, with an emphasis on hazardous materials.

As noted therein, import and export statistics for all goods are compiled by Statistics Canada's International Trade Division using the Harmonized System (HS) codes - an internationally based system. Primarily designed for use by customs departments, the HS system is also employed by Statistics Canada to track production data. The report identified significant limitations with the ability of either the HS system or Canada Customs to track waste types, whether destined for disposal or recycling. Significant limitations in this respect included the following:

An attempt was made by the study's authors to extract waste data from the Trade Information Enquiry and Retrieval System (TIERS) database, which records all imports and exports. While the TIERS database is, in theory, a comprehensive record of Canadian trade, its usefulness for waste analysis was again found to be limited as the HS system was not designed to track wastes or to discriminate between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The best source of data on hazardous waste exports and imports was determined to be from the manifests filed under the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste Regulations.

Most trade in wastes was noted to occur within the OECD, with Canada's largest trading partner being the United States. Limitations in data notwithstanding, an attempt was made to relate the data presented in the HS system to OECD waste code mapping. As noted in Section 3, OECD codes classify wastes into three lists - green (non hazardous), amber and red - according to the potential risks they may pose. Difficulties arose in this exercise, however, as some HS codes had more than one OECD code type. The report nevertheless concluded that most trade activity involved non-hazardous wastes.

The quantities of waste exported to non-OECD countries, as indicated by the HS codes, were noted to fluctuate significantly. In general, exports had grown much faster in (the then) past years than the gross domestic product (GDP), and it was considered likely that this would be true for recyclables and wastes, as well as for other goods and services. Overall, waste exports were suggested to correlate quite well with total merchandise exports. Most of the non-OECD trade was associated with green categories of waste.

Certain materials were further noted to be of potential concern as hazardous wastes to some receiving countries, even though they were not considered hazardous under Canadian (or international) regulations. Tires and waste plastics were two examples cited.

In February, 1999 the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (Waste Management Division) published a document entitled "Report of Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan, October 1, 1997 - September 30, 1998". As noted therein, all landfills in Michigan are required to annually report the amount of solid waste received by county, state, or country of origin. The 1999 report was the third annual report of solid waste landfilled in the State.

While it was recognized that the data may include some estimations (and did not address incineration except for the final landfilling of ash from municipal incinerators), it was clear that the largest source of waste imports to Michigan continues to be from Canada. Total reported Canadian imports amounted to 2 548 815 cu.yds., a level generally consistent with that noted in the previous two reporting periods. In the current reporting period, nine landfills in seven State counties were involved in this trade. Canadian imports were found to be equivalent to 5.5% of all waste disposed of in Michigan landfills. Out-of-state waste imports, in general, totaled 12.3% of all solid waste disposed of in State sites.

As discussed throughout this section, the transboundary movement of non-hazardous waste NHW, hazardous wastes and recyclable materials involves important and interrelated economic, environmental and social public policy considerations. At present, and as reviewed in Section 3, the movement of hazardous waste is regulated and controlled at a federal level and by the provinces. The transboundary movement of recyclables, further, has been identified as forming an important element of Canadian trade and domestic commercial activities. NHW movements currently take place with minimal regulatory control. The movement and control of all three waste streams, however, are interconnected in a way that activities in one area can have adverse consequences in other areas (e.g., the impacts of low cost disposal exports on 3Rs infrastructure).

Environment Canada's long stated policy on transboundary movements is to allow our borders to remain open to the controlled movements of hazardous wastes, hazardous recyclable materials and non-hazardous waste while ensuring that such movements are managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment and administered such that an affected jurisdiction can refuse or consent to imports on the basis of protecting their environment.

While it is clear that no course of future action (including doing nothing) is without both advantages and disadvantages, it is equally clear that some action is required, to meet Canada's international commitments in Basel and amendments to the Canada-U.S. Agreement (see Section 3). The status quo (do-nothing) alternative further ignores potential future restrictions and flow control regulations by other governments and, does nothing to alleviate concerns regarding the present undermining of the 3Rs by the presence of low cost export disposal.

While it might be argued that a voluntary approach should be considered to waste flow reporting as a first alternative to the above, the lack of success in the prior Environment Canada pilot program (Section 4.4) does not support this position. Some action is, therefore, required.

Of the various available options for action, some form of regulatory mechanism (as suggested in Section 4.3) appears the logical first choice at this time. This option would avoid the significant disadvantages of potential economic instruments or the more aggressive bans or restrictions on imports/exports such as the potential for retaliatory trade measures. It would also represent a first logical step to any form of further active involvement on the part of the federal government. That is, if more active measures were later determined to be desirable, some form of monitoring would necessarily still be required to be in place.

Waste management regulations in the U.S., our largest "trading" partner with respect to transboundary waste movements, can be expected to evolve as evidenced by past attempts at flow control and interstate waste bills (Section 3.7). This evolution may eventually place our waste management industry as well as municipal entities that have grown to depend on waste export as an available management option in a difficult situation. Should this come to pass, the first area of logical recourse would be through the federal government. In order for this level of government to fully and expeditiously understand the ramifications of such a situation and the level of importance it deserves, it can be argued that they must be aware of the scope of potential impacts. A need to understand current trends in transboundary quantities, through an ongoing monitoring and PIC program, would be one element in this understanding.

Notwithstanding, it is recognized that the waste management industry and generators may find it difficult to accept changes to the status quo. Further, careful attention must be paid to potential implications to the waste diversion industry, so as to not adversely affect current and future activities in this regard. Appropriate levels of reporting requirements supported by a clearly understood and easily enforced definition of prescribed non-hazardous wastes are necessary.

Page details

Date modified: