2. Workshop Results

• 2.1 Structure of the Workshops
• 2.2 Translation Services
• 2.3 Workshop Attendance
• 2.4 Common Themes
• 2.5 Workshop Discussion

The workshops were held in Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver and Calgary in order to get a broad regional stakeholder representation. Representatives from industries, carriers, waste management companies, and environmental non-governmental organizations were invited to attend the workshops.

The workshops were held over two days and were divided into four plenary and three breakout sessions, where numbers permitted. To ensure the full participation of attendees, workshop participants were assigned to breakout groups of no more than twenty (20) members. The breakout groups were structured to include individuals from as many of the stakeholder sectors as possible in order to obtain varied input from each of the groups.

The consultation was broken into four topics of discussion. These topics were discussed in the following order:

The agenda for the workshops can be seen in Figure 1. Each workshop followed this agenda with some minor modifications to the order of topics occurring at some of the locations.

Day 1

• Registration and Breakfast
• Opening Remarks
• Introduction to the proposed regulations
• Introduction to the discussion paper and highlights of past consultations
• Session I
  • Part I - Definitions
  • Part II - Scope of Coverage
  • Part III - Exemptions
  • Part IV - Prohibitions
  • Breakout Groups
  • Plenary Discussion - Session I
• Session II - Part IX - Environmentally Sound Management
• Breakout Groups
• Plenary discussion- Session III

Day 2

• Registration and Breakfast
• Opening Remarks
• Session III
  • Part V - Transboundary Movement Control Regimes
  • Part VI - Permits of Equivalent Level of Environmental Safety (PELES)
  • Part VII - Liability & Insurance
  • Part VIII - Waste Reduction Plans
• Breakout Groups
• Plenary Discussion - Session III
• Session IV - Part IX - Status of Interprovincial Regulations
• Next steps and Wrap Up

Primary facilitators presented each of the topics to the entire group of participants in plenary sessions. Breakout groups and wrap-up plenary sessions then followed the presentations. In each breakout session, the participants discussed a list of pre-identified issues about the given topic. (The list of pre-identified issues for each session is included in Appendix A.) Each breakout group had a group facilitator to ensure that the discussion stayed on course and that the concerns and requests for clarifications were recorded. At the end of each breakout session, the participants selected a representative to present the group's thoughts on the various issues at the following plenary session.

The invitation packages and the discussion paper were made available to the stakeholders in both English and French. In order to ensure the effective participation of all attendees, simultaneous translation services were provided at the Montreal workshop. However, it should be noted that most of the presentations at the Montreal workshop were made in French.

A total of 148 stakeholders participated in the workshops, representing waste generators, recyclers, carriers, disposers, industry associations, and Environmental Non-governmental Organizations (ENGOs).

The Toronto workshop had the greatest number of attendees with 60 stakeholders, while the Vancouver workshop had the smallest attendance with 13 participants. A total of 28 representatives attended the Montreal workshop, 27 were present at the Calgary location, and 20 were present at the Halifax workshop. It should be noted that several registered participants were not present at the actual meetings. For example, although 60 stakeholders participated in the Toronto workshop, over 80 were registered. In addition, several ENGOs were invited to the Calgary session. However, none were present at this session, even though follow-up phone calls were made in an attempt to confirm their attendance. The list of ENGOs that were invited to all of the workshops is presented in Appendix B. The distribution of representation by sector for each workshop is shown in Table 1.

Throughout all five workshops, there were a number of common issues that the majority of participants identified in the breakout groups and plenary sessions. These issues and recommendations from the workshop participants are summarized below.

In general, participants throughout all the workshops favored a generic harmonization of regulations across borders and inter-provincial jurisdictions. However, there was general frustration among participants about the speed of progress in this area, since it was felt that there has been much discussion on the topic with no significant progress to date.

Effective harmonization of the regulations would help industries and governments in improving efficiency and delivering services in a cost-effective manner. Harmonization should also include a generic itemization procedure across many regulations. Participants also suggested that Canadian law should not be extended to foreign exports. As such, it was felt that the country of import (e.g. Basel signatory, OECD country) would extend their own requirements to imports into their country. Harmonization with the U.S. was supported particularly strongly among most of the participants.

Participants also identified an urgent need to harmonize inter-provincial regulations with intra-provincial, import/export, and transport regulations. Without this harmonization, participants generally felt that adhering to the regulations would become a hindrance and an added paper burden.

The general feeling was that the simple fact of decoupling hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material do not in and of itself facilitate nor promote recycling. As such, many stakeholders felt that EC should work to remove unnecessary impediments to the flow of recyclable materials. Most participants expressed that little is achieved by differentiating waste and recyclable materials in definition if they are not distinct in the regulations. It was stated that having to follow all of the regulations for recyclable materials does not encourage the 3 R's. In order to better promote recycling, it was felt that recyclable materials should be considered products or commodities. However, some participants suggested that the differences should be limited to those recyclable materials that do not create hazardous waste residue after treatment. In addition, separate and distinct regulatory regimes for waste and recyclables was a favorable item for most participants.

Participants also expressed a desire for a distinction between hazardous waste and dangerous good carriers and that recyclables be considered a dangerous good. Many suggested that EC develop more criteria to be used to demonstrate that once processed, a hazardous recyclable material has become a product (commodity). When a product meets certain specific uses, it should no longer be deemed a waste.

The general sense was that recyclable materials should be treated as a commodity rather than a liability. This was repeated many times throughout the course of the workshops.

Participants generally supported having a mechanism for administrative variances in the regulations. The efficiency of the process of obtaining Permits of Equivalent Level of Environmental Safety (PELES) was an area of concern for participants. PELES was often confused with the Conditional Exclusion, and many participants were unsure of the application of each mechanism. Also, many participants were concerned about the amount of time and effort that would be required to obtain such permits. For example, if obtaining a PELES required a year of work and numerous expenditures, most felt that these would not be useful. It was generally agreed upon that they are both beneficial mechanisms if they would be relatively easy to obtain within reasonable time frames. Many participants were also cautious because of the anticipated requirements for proof, (i.e. what information would be required to obtain a PELES or be approved for a conditional exclusion?). Participants also questioned Environment Canada's ability to process such permits quickly enough to be used effectively by shippers and transporters.

The issue of public access to and availability of information was also raised in a discussion of PELES. Some participants were concerned that PELES and conditional exclusion submissions should be available for public review, including the requirement for public hearings and posting for comment, of PELES in major newspapers and/or on the Internet.

In light of U.S. EPA experience, participants desire a system that is fair, consistent, economical and timely. It was requested that the regulations spell out more clearly the process and criteria to be employed by the issuing authority.

There was general support for small quantity exemption. The proposed amendments currently stipulate an exemption from the regulations of 5kg/5L for waste and recyclables and 25kg/25L for recyclables that are samples. Many participants felt that this limit was much too restrictive because samples that exceed this limit are often required for process and new technology-testing purposes. This is particularly true in the metals/minerals recycling industry. It was felt that Environment Canada should consider a separate limit for research purposes for samples that are being sent across borders.

There was general support among participants for the reduction of operational burdens on industries in general. Stakeholders, especially those in the hazardous waste transport business, were very interested in those proposals that reduced operational burdens on industry. Participants were open to new concepts such as e-filing (making notice submissions easier and more efficient), renewal mechanisms (whereby yearly renewals would be easier for industries and could be obtained with greater ease with adequate data submission), and reducing burdens on industry where waste is only hazardous in Canada for recyclables. In essence, participants expressed the requirement for greater efficiency in the administration of the regulations, where possible, and its associated requirements.

The following section summarizes the key responses from the breakout groups as well as highlights and questions from associated plenary sessions. General topics are presented, rather than addressing each question for discussion. These theme areas were generally observed to be the key discussion points.

Participants at all workshops were generally satisfied with the fashion in which key terms were defined, and understood how the definitions would function within the new regulations. Certain definitions did present issues for participants, and these were raised in most of the workshops. Others understood the definitions, but required clarification on some of the terms to ensure proper interpretation. The largest concerns were raised over the definition of "waste" vs. "recyclable." Comments received in the breakout sessions indicated that the distinction between the terms was difficult to understand. The following issues were also raised in discussions over definitions:

• A more complete definition of "recycling" was raised as an issue, whereby the term "recycling" or any derivatives of the word is not included in the definition. Participants required clarification over the difference between hazardous waste and recyclable materials.
• The term "consignment" as used in the discussions required clarification, and should be harmonized with the Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) definition to avoid confusion and duplication.
• Most participants had concerns with the definition and requirements of "temporary disposal" and "interim storage." The question of time period and requirements for these activities was raised quite frequently. Storage timelines were also raised as an issue for clarification. It was suggested that the provinces specify that shipments would be approved as long as the material wasn't stored for more than a set number of days.
• Participants requested separate definitions for "bulker" and "processor." Many were wary of including these definitions together. For example, in Alberta, "bulker" is defined as a treatment activity, where it is not one under the EIHWR. It is important to recognize that under the EIHWR, bulking does not entail changing the chemical characteristics of the waste (unless licensed to do so).
• Some participants expressed concerns over the distinction between "storage" and "export and import." Some felt that separate requirements should be imposed for each activity.
• Participants requested guidance on the interpretation of the items on the D and R lists, in addition to further clarification on the definition of each item. In other cases, some participants suggested dividing the "D" and "R" lists into further sub-lists.
• Frequent requests were made for a clarification of "agent" and "broker."
• Participants at all workshops were generally unclear on the definition of "Environmentally Sound Management (ESM)." Questions were raised over its applicability and how it could be defined in the context of the new regulations.

Due to the relatively recent introduction of the ESM concept, extensive discussions were held on this issue. While there is unanimous agreement that hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclable material must be managed in an environmentally sound manner, many participants raised concerns over how the proposed elements could be applied in the new regulations. Others suggested that it may be premature to proceed with ESM due to a generally poor understanding. The breakout sessions also indicated participant confusion over the difference between ESM and EMS. In the breakout sessions, a series of 10 questions were discussed dealing with ESM and EMS. In some of the latter workshops, the discussion questions were reformulated to include 12 questions. Most participants, having been exposed to EMS for quite some time, were receptive to its use in the regulations, while others were concerned with the possibility that the imposition of such a system may duplicate requirements already in place under provincial law or those that are voluntarily within industry. The following issues were also raised in the breakout sessions:

• Most participants generally supported a mix of regulatory and voluntary initiatives as part of the move to implementation of environmental management systems as part of the ESM requirements. Most participants favored initial voluntary movement by industries followed by the imposition of longer-term regulatory deadlines.
• Participants were in favor of a combination of internal audits by industries or 3rd party verification followed by a set of checks and balances administered by regulatory authorities.
• Many participants expressed their concern over how the requirement for EMS and/or ESM would have an impact on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). A funding mechanism was proposed as a means of assisting SMEs with the costs of certification to an EMS. On the other hand, there were views expressed that SMEs should be subject to the same minimum requirements to protect the environment.
• Hazardous waste disposal facilities and recycling facilities should be treated equally under ESM. Most were in favor of leveling the playing field among all activities so as to promote fairness among industries and sectors.
• Participants generally agreed that provincial co-operation would be required should ESM become a common facet in the new regulations. Many believed that embedding ESM criteria within Certificates of Approval (CofA's) would work, but cautioned that this could be a difficult endeavor.
• In relation to certification, there were some suggestions to examine certification of industries by a Panel, as is done in the Canadian Chemical Producers Association (CCPA).
• Many participants agreed that Environment Canada should examine other standards to promote environmental management. ISO 14001 should not be promoted as the sole system that could be used as an EMS. Many other standards could be beneficial.
• More specific incentive-driven programs for industries should be considered if ESM were to become a part of the new regulations. This would aid companies towards standardization.

As a final note on ESM, participants suggested that EC work to further define the requirements under ESM. Subsequent to this, participants requested that EC then consult with stakeholders once again, allowing for proper comment on the desired focus of ESM.

The questions concerning liability and insurance generated a significant amount of discussion, resulting in a number of diverging issues and common interests. Most participants agreed that current requirements and levels were adequate for the activities being performed by industries. On the other hand, some participants felt that levels were too low and not in line with the risk posed by hazardous waste transport. Other stakeholders expressed concern over the enforcement of liability and insurance requirements for those who choose to transport without it. Some of the issues and concerns raised in these discussions were:

• There appears to be little justification for the current distinction in insurance levels for recyclable materials and wastes.
• Insurance and individual liability requirements should be based on the loss history of a company and should consider the risk posed, based on previous accident history.
• Some participants noted that various U.S. facilities were offering protection to industries from liability. As such, it was questioned whether this requirement could be extended across the border to Canada.
• The liability and insurance system should be tied to a hazard rating and risk, taking into account the specific material that is being shipped.
• Levels would be adequate if they actually covered the costs of potential impairment resulting from accidents and loss. These levels were set many years ago and should be re-visited to determine whether they are still adequate.
• At various times, the actual amount of hazardous material being shipped is too small to justify the minimum requirements for insurance.
• A level-playing field across provinces and territories (and possibly North America and the world) would help industries that often ship quantities that are much smaller than the minimum requirement for insurance.
• The level of insurance should be a strict business decision on the part of the industries.

As seen in the points raised above, there were a number of diverging opinions on liability and insurance requirements. Most, however, were concerned about issues related to differing requirements in provinces, the U.S. and internationally.

Although presented as a new concept in the realm of the Regulations, e-filing was well received by workshop participants. It was felt that such a system should proceed with cautionary measures to ensure that the process is efficient, easy to understand, and include as little burden as possible. Some of the points raised by participants include:

• A harmonized system that works well and is similar to processes used by the provinces, federal government, customs, and theU.S. Department of Transportation is desired.
• EC should attempt to harmonize notice numbers across the Canadian/U.S. border, and ensure that requirements for customs at international borders are included in the e-filing requirements developed by Environment Canada.
• Paper filing should still be available to industries, as the logistics of a new system may be quite burdensome, especially for some SMEs.
• There was some concern raised over access for small operators (i.e. Internet access, software, logistics of setting up a new system dedicated to electronic filing).
• EC should ensure that software formats are simple and derived from pre-existing, easy-to-understand programs (i.e. Microsoft Word, Excel, etc.)
• Various participants questioned how the manifest sign-off would be handled in light of e-filing (i.e. electronic signatures?)
• Some participants raised the question of privacy and confidentiality, and there were some concerns about the availability and access to information to the public.

There was mixed reaction to waste reduction plans among workshop participants. Some felt that industries were already implementing these plans. Some of the feedback on this issue is as follows:

• The impact of the changes would be positive for companies that develop on-site treatment technologies, not final disposal centers.
• In regard to the proposal to include generators in the definition of "exporter", many felt that it made sense to do this in the new regulations. The generator can be the only one to control the volume of waste produced. Some disagreed with this idea, feeling that it would be too burdensome to attempt to include generator in the definition of "exporter," particularly where the exporter is a waste management company.
• As with many of other issues, participants felt that this proposal should also be linked to the Interprovincial Regulations, and ensure that WRP's are part of an integrated regime and take into account pollution prevention planning and the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) requirements.
• The implementation of a waste reduction incentive program would be beneficial.
• Many participants expressed their concern over waste bulked from many different sources. This will make it difficult to have a sound waste reduction program (unless specific waste streams are examined).
• Some participants suggested a special services program that would assist industries to create and track waste reduction plans and associated progress.
• Many participants noted that waste reduction plans were already being used by many industries, and as such, would not like to duplicate effort. The proposed program should recognize work already done to reduce waste.
• Many individuals expressed their concerns over the administrative burdens that such a program could impose, especially on SMEs, in relation to tracking, filing, reporting, etc. The imposition of WRP's could also create an incentive for industries to send waste to inappropriate facilities or encourage volume rather than hazard reduction.
• Such a program has the potential to promote recycling, which was seen as a positive element of the proposal. However, some participants were concerned that it would promote waste reduction or recycling even when it was not a preferred or feasible option. For example, what if a reduction is simply not possible given the waste stream or specific circumstance?
• If such a program were to become a requirement, many participants cautioned industries against using transfer stations to avoid new reduction requirements. As such, loopholes in the program must be anticipated prior to its imposition.

The proposed renewal mechanism to increase efficiency of notification and facilitate compliance when manifesting was supported by many of the workshop participants. Many commented that it was a step in the right direction toward creating a more efficient reporting and tracking program. As such, many suggestions were offered on how the program could work effectively to achieve its intended goals. The following comments were received regarding the proposed renewal mechanism:

• If a company is shipping similar waste and volumes from year to year, it was suggested that there be a mechanism whereby insurance policies, if still valid, could be submitted individually rather than having to submit the entire policy again.
• Many participants supported the use of the same notification number year-by-year in order to reduce administrative burdens and to promote an efficient permit process.
• Many participants were concerned with changing waste quantities over a 1-year time period. As such, many suggested the institution of a buffer zone, whereby a change in waste quantities in the same year would not constitute a resubmission of documentation. This buffer zone was proposed in the +/- 10% range.
• Many participants were supportive of issuing notices to the corporate headquarters of the company, rather than to each specific site.