8. Regulatory Management Options
- 8.1 Intensive Regulatory Coverage/Application
- 8.2 Nominal Regulatory Coverage/Application
- 8.3 Intermediate Regulatory Coverage/Application
As previously outlined in Section 2.6, further consultation/communication activities related to the development of the proposed NHW regulations are to be carried out following the release of this discussion paper. These pan-Canadian consultative events are to commence in the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2000/2001 and involve the full spectrum of potential stakeholders (all levels of government, the private sector and non-governmental organizations). Subsequent steps in the regulatory development process (Policy Paper, Draft Regulations, etc.) are also discussed in Section 2.6.
In order to assist with this exercise and provide an initial basis for these discussions, a range of alternative approaches for the proposed regulations are presented in this section. Observations have also been provided on some of the potential relative merits of these schemes; however it is not the intention of this discussion paper to suggest a recommended or preferred approach. The following material is provided for discussion purposes only and to illustrate how the incorporated components may interact with each other.
This section should be reviewed in conjunction with Section 6 (Definitional Issues and Waste Reduction Plans) and Section 7 (Prior Informed Consent and Manifest Approaches).
As outlined in this section, three regulatory approaches are presented to address a range of definitional issues and prior informed consent and tracking/manifest requirements. As is evident from these approaches, competing interests exist. Efforts to ensure full compliance with Canada's international obligations and to maximize waste reduction, for example, are often at odds with the desire to reduce levels of bureaucracy and minimize the associated costs and burdens to the regulated community. The three broad approaches discussed in this section are as follows:
- Intensive Regulatory Coverage/Application;
- Nominal Regulatory Coverage/Application; and
- Intermediate Regulatory Coverage/Application.
For the preceding, the terms 'intensive', 'nominal' or, 'intermediate' are used simply as indications of relative levels of control provided, as well as the relative levels of effort required by both the regulated community and the regulator to implement the approach.
This option reflects input received from certain stakeholders during the consultation discussions and represents the most stringent of the presented regulatory approaches. As illustrated on Figure 8.1, prescribed waste under this approach would be defined as any non-hazardous solid waste that is destined for final disposal. 'Final disposal' is defined, for this approach, as encompassing any facility or site that receives unprocessed and/or unsorted waste. Such facilities would include, among others, EFW plants, mixed waste processing operations and (possibly) composting facilities. In order to meet the requirement to demonstrate waste reduction, an exporter would need to submit reduction plans in order to receive an export permit.
For Prior Informed Consent, an extensive degree of consultation is envisaged, entailing public notification in the importing and exporting jurisdictions and (potentially) a plebiscite in the receiving community. An appropriate amount of time would need to be allotted to receive public comments. Government involvement would include notification to, and approval by, the exporting jurisdiction (to allow that jurisdiction to better manage local 3Rs programs) as well as the receipt of consent from the local importing jurisdiction.
Permit applications would be required with each shipment and would incorporate the specific identification of the final disposal facility (including proof of that facility's regulatory compliance). Projected waste quantities to be shipped would need to be documented and, ultimately, confirmed by reporting on a shipment-by-shipment basis.
With regards to waste tracking and manifests, full public disclosure of all received information (without prior industry consent) is assumed with this approach. Further, manifests would be prepared for each shipment and be processed during all steps of transport. A copy would be provided to Customs. Finally, the tracking system loop would be closed by requiring the receiving facility to submit a certificate confirming the appropriate handling/disposal of the received waste.
Of the three options considered herein, this approach provides the most significant level of support for waste minimization and environmentally sound management practices. It further boasts the greatest level of fulfillment towards Canada's international obligations in the regulation of transboundary waste movements and provides the highest level of public transparency. This option may also be the least vulnerable to abuse due to its substantial requirement for reporting.
Associated with this degree of waste control, this option will require far more significant levels of effort on the part of the regulated community and the regulator to implement (the latter with regards to administration, policing, etc.). This added level of bureaucracy will be considered by many (based on received stakeholder input) to be excessive and out of proportion to the level of environmental risks involved in NHW transboundary movements. This option would also have the greatest potential negative impact on trade and commerce because of the associated costs and burdens to integrate the system's requirements with current practices/policies.
Figure 8.1 - Intensive Regulatory Coverage/Application
This option also reflects input received from certain stakeholders (primarily the private sector) and is intended to represent a position near the other end of the spectrum relative to the level of control envisaged with the previous approach.
With this approach, as illustrated on Figure 8.2, prescribed waste would be defined as any non-hazardous solid waste that has been collected by or on behalf of municipalities. Subject waste disposal facilities would include only landfills and waste incineration facilities. In its implementation, an exporter would not be required to demonstrate specific waste reduction activities, reference would simply be made to existing in-place municipal or provincial programs.
For requirements related to Prior Informed Consent, public consultation would be restricted to the posting of notices in the CEPA Registry (incorporating a minimal level of information such as the name of the waste hauler and type of waste to be shipped). No involvement of the exporting jurisdiction would be needed, notification would simply be made to the importing federal jurisdiction.
Under this approach, export applications would be permitted to cover periods in excess of 12 months (although it is recognized that this is not compliant with requirements laid out in the Basel Convention or the Canada-U.S.A. Agreement). Multiple potential final disposal sites could be listed, without the need for proof of their regulatory compliance. Further projected waste quantities would be identified in the Notice.
For waste tracking and manifests, public disclosure would be limited to an annual summary report by Environment Canada presenting data on a province-by-province basis. Waste manifests would not be required. Electronic tracking at Customs would take place.
Of the presented approaches, this option provides only a nominal level of support for waste reduction. While likely not consistent with most of Canada's international obligations for transboundary waste movements, it also does not provide a significant level of transparency for the public. Further, it is potentially vulnerable to manipulation because of its minimal requirement for reporting.
This option would likely receive the highest level of support from the regulated community because of its reduced level of bureaucracy and its lower associated costs and burdens to integrate system requirements with current practices/policies.
Figure 8.2 - Nominal Regulatory Coverage/Application
This regulatory alternative might be viewed as a 'middle-ground' or intermediate approach relative to that presented previously in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. As illustrated on Figure 8.3, prescribed waste under this approach would include municipal solid waste as well as waste from the industrial/commercial/institutional (IC&I) and construction/demolition sectors. Subject final disposal facilities would again (as with nominal regulatory coverage/application) encompass only landfills and waste incineration plants. The requirement to demonstrate waste reduction would be limited to a sector-focused approach (e.g., concentrating on larger waste generators only).
With respect to Prior Informed Consent, public consultation would also involve the posting of notices in the CEPA Registry (although incorporating an expanded level of information relative to the preceding approach). Notification to the exporting and importing jurisdictions would be included although consent would only required from the importing jurisdiction.
Notices and PIC would be dealt with on an annual basis, covering all shipments over that time. The final disposal site (receiving facility) would be identified in the application. Waste quantities would need to be projected at the beginning of the year, followed by reporting at the end of the subject period concerning the actual quantities shipped.
With regards to waste tracking and manifest requirements, public disclosure would (as with the approach identified in Section 8.2) be addressed through annual summary reports by Environment Canada. With this option, however, these reports would identify specific exporters and receiving sites.
While a shipment manifest system is not envisaged with this approach, 'rear-view' reporting would be expected from the exporter or importer detailing, among other things, the fate of wastes at receiving facilities. An electronic tracking system would be used at Customs to minimize paper work.
This option represents one possible intermediate approach to the previous two regulatory schemes, in which an attempt is made to arrive at a balance between economic efficiency and effectiveness, while complying with Canada's international regulatory obligations.
Figure 8.3 - Intermediate Regulatory Coverage/Application