British Columbia Order in Council — Order under Ministry of Environment The Minister to enter into the following agreements: Canada-Wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury In Dental Amalgams Canada-Wide Standards for Mercury-Containing Lamps (O.C. 525/2001)

O.C. 525/2001

British Columbia — Orders in Council

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ORDER OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL Order in Council No. 525 , Approved and Ordered ApR i 8 20 01 Lieutenant Governor Executive Council Chambers, Victoria On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, orders that approval is given to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to enter into agreements substantially in the form attached to this order. Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks Presid Member of the Executive Council (This

part is for administrative purposes only and is not part of the Order.) Authority under which Order is made: Act and section: Ministry of Environment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,

Chapter 299, s.6 Other (specify): 3LN-9)c)1\\3

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CANADA- WIDE STANDARDS for DIOXINS AND FURANS Accepted June 6, 2000 for Endorsement in November 2000 June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furaris 1

CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for Dioxins and Furans

PREAMBLE Dioxins and Furans Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), commonly known as dioxins and furans, are toxic, persistent, bioaccumulative, and result predominantly from human activity. Due to their extraordinary environmental persistence and capacity to accumulate in biological tissues, dioxins and furans are slated for virtual elimination under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the federal Toxic Substances Management Policy (TSMP) and the CCME Policy for the Management of Toxic Substances.

The presence of dioxins and furans in the Canadian environment can be attributed to three principal sources: point source discharges (to water, air and soil), contamination from in situ dioxins and furans, and loadings from the long-range transportation of air pollutants (LRTAP). LRTAP is the focus of multilateral conventions and bilateral accords at the international level. Dioxin and furan contamination found in soil, water, sediments, and tissues (in situ contamination), is the subject of national guidelines for dioxins and furans.

These guidelines outline ambient or "alert levels" which may be used by jurisdictions as benchmarks for the management and monitoring of dioxins and furans already present in the environment. Point source discharges to water have been the target of aggressive federal and provincial regulation, as well as industry innovation and change. Discharges of dioxins & furans to the aquatic environment reached non-measurable levels in 1995.

Development of the Canada-wide Standard The Canada-wide Standards process has focussed on anthropogenic sources that are releasing dioxins and furans to the atmosphere and soil in a continuous process. In January 1999, the Federal/Provincial Task Force on Dioxins and Furans released the Dioxins and Furans and Hexachlorobenzene Inventory of Releases which documented the current understanding of anthropogenic sources in Canada releasing dioxins and furans. The Inventory of Releases lists emissions from over 20 sectors by province and territory, and provides national summaries for each sector.

Initial efforts have focused on atmospheric releases, the most complete component of the Inventory. Six priority sectors, varying from regional to national in scope, accounting for about 80% of national emissions have been identified as priorities for early action. These are waste incineration (municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, sewage sludge and medical waste); burning salt laden wood in coastal pulp and paper boilers in British Columbia; residential wood combustion; iron sintering; electric arc furnace steel manufacturing; and conical municipal waste combustion in Newfoundland.

June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 2

To date, CWSs have been developed for the coastal pulp and paper boiler and the incineration sectors. CWSs for the remaining priority sectors will be completed in 2001. Additional source sectors, many of which contribute very small amounts of dioxins and furans emissions, will also be addressed in 2001 as will releases to soil. Development of CWSs for dioxins and furans has taken into consideration environmental benefits, available technologies, socio-economic impacts, opportunities for pollution prevention and collateral benefits from reductions in other pollutants.

In recognition of the ultimate goal of virtual elimination, pollution prevention is being encouraged as the preferred method for avoiding the creation of dioxins or reducing releases to the environment. Wherever possible, work on the dioxins and furans CWSs has been coordinated with other ongoing processes (e.g. Mercury CWS and the Strategic Options Process). A multi-pollutant approach will be carried forward to the remaining sectors while ensuring that dioxins and furans issues are addressed and that the ultimate goal of virtual elimination is kept clearly in mind.

Opportunities for a multi-pollutant approach will also be pursued as part of the implementation of the Dioxins and Furans Canada-wide Standard. During development of the inventory, it was realized that the data on dioxins and furans is limited. The information in the dioxins and furans inventory will be refined and updated on a regular basis through a variety of sources including the National Pollutants Release Inventory (NPRI) as a means of tracking progress and as a means of identifying any future sources of releases that must be addressed. June 6,2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 3

PART 1: Pulp and Paper Boilers Burning Salt Laden Wood Rationale for standard Unique to British Columbia, the burning of salt laden wood results in an annual release of 8.6 gTEQ/year to the atmosphere or 4.3 percent of the national total of dioxin and furans emissions documented in the inventory of releases prepared under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As a result of mill closures and voluntary industry initiatives that have reduced atmospheric releases, the current total represents a 25% reduction from 1990 releases.

Dioxins and furans emitted from coastal pulp and paper mills are created through the burning of salt contaminated hogged fuel. Logs transported and stored in salt water take up chlorine into the bark. The bark is stripped from the logs and ground up to produce hogged fuel. This material is then used as boiler fuel to produce heat and electrical energy for the pulp and paper process. Over 1.4 million oven dried tonnes of hogged fuel were used by the coastal pulp and paper industry in B.C. in 1998. Nature and application: The CWS for this sector consists of two components.

The first component sets out numeric targets and timeframes for reducing emissions from new and existing boilers. This standard applies to boilers burning more than 10,000 oven dry metric tonnes per year of hogged fuel generated from wood transported or stored in salt water. All boilers currently reliant on hogged fuel generated from wood transported or stored in salt water currently consume in excess of 50,000 oven dry metric tonnes annually. As part of the implementation of this standard, procedures will be put in place to report on the salt content of the hogged fuel to ensure compliance with the standard.

The second component sets out a process for further examining pollution prevention - opportunities to prevent the creation of dioxins and furans. Numeric Target and Timeframe for Achieving Target Dioxin and furan emissions will be less than 100 pg/m 3 TEQ for new boilers constructed after the effective date of this standard. Dioxin and furan emissions will be less than 500 pg/m 3 TEQ for all existing boilers by 2006. "New" means a total replacement including firebox, heat transfer surfaces and air emission control equipment. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 4

The standard for existing boilers is set pending the acquisition of further test data and controlled studies of boiler operation. Recognizing the ultimate objective of virtual elimination as set out in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the mill operators will voluntarily pursue further reductions in emissions during the period of the standard. In doing so the operators will conduct additional studies to identify the reasons for higher dioxin and furan emissions at some locations and explore and, as practicable, implement measures to achieve virtual elimination at all locations.

Measures to be explored include physical and process modifications to prevent or reduce dioxin and furan formation as well as emission control upgrades and/or other pollution prevention measures. Every boiler covered by this standard will be tested twice per year to determine the level of dioxin and furan air emissions for the years prior to 2003 and annually for the years 2003 and thereafter. Testing and reporting will be performed using methods and procedures acceptable to the responsible provincial ministry.

The standard for existing boilers will be reviewed in 2003 based on the results of the additional testing, the additional studies on dioxin and furan creation and opportunities to achieve virtual elimination and the examination of other pollution prevention opportunities. Pollution Prevention Strategy In addition to the continuing efforts of pulp and paper mill operators to capture emissions of dioxin and furans, emphasis will be placed on identifying and implementing opportunities to prevent the creation of dioxins and furans.

A strategy identifying opportunities to eliminate the formation of dioxins and furans by the coastal pulp and paper industry will be developed through a multi-stakeholder process by December 31, 2001 to provide a framework for continual progress towards the elimination of dioxin and furans. Recognizing that most opportunities for avoiding the creation of dioxins and furans fall beyond the exclusive influence of the coastal pulp and paper mill operators, preparation of this strategy must engage a wide range of stakeholders.

The range of issues to be addressed in developing the strategy could include: • maximum allowable salt content for hogged fuel • removal of chloride from logs • hogged fuel washing and pressing • options for blending hogged fuel of different salt levels • alternatives to log handling, transportation and storage practices that rely on salt water • impacts of the length of time entailed in transportation and storage on the salt content of hogged fuel • inclusion of transportation modes and effects in eco-certification criteria • in-plant opportunities to avoid creation of dioxins and furans • alternative fuel opportunities and costs • providing greater opportunities for market intervention by improving the understanding of the costs being imposed on the pulp and paper mills by current log handling and storage practices June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 5

Waste Incineration Rationale for standard Waste incineration has historically been responsible for a significant portion of the dioxins and furans emitted in Canada. The total release of dioxins and furans from this sector amounts to 44.9 g/ TEQ/y or 22.5% of the total releases to the atmosphere. Improved exhaust gas controls to reduce emissions of acid gases and fine particulates or activated carbon injection systems have decreased emissions of both mercury and dioxins and furans from the municipal solid waste (MSW) sector. Dioxins and furans emissions from this sector are estimated to be approximately 8.4 g/yr.

Many medical waste incinerators have closed for economic or environmental reasons. However, a range of medium-to small-sized facilities remain. Individually these are small sources, but as a sector they are significant, emitting an estimated 28.8 g/yr. Two additional incineration sectors, hazardous waste (7.6 g/yr) and sewage sludge (0.1 g/yr), are also addressed by the CWS. A Canada-wide Standard for incineration of MSW in conical waste combusters in Newfoundland will be brought forward in 2001.

Newfoundland has committed to reviewing the use of these facilities and to considering a phase-out strategy that will reduce emissions of dioxins and furans as well as mercury. These actions are also identified in the Mercury Canada-wide Standard accepted by the Council of Ministers in November 1999. Actions to reduce national emissions require that any new facilities meet stringent limits, and that the bulk of the emissions from existing facilities be controlled through retrofits with control technology that is efficient at destroying dioxins and furans.

Diverting waste from incinerators would result in less incineration overall and thus avoid creation of dioxins and furans. All facilities, and particularly smaller ones, may find that pollution prevention, waste segregation and diversion are options for either achieving the limit, or reducing "end-of-stack" expenditures, and during implementation all facilities should be encouraged to place a priority on reduced inputs rather than controlled releases.

Definitions: Waste incinerator: a device, mechanism or structure constructed primarily to thermally treat (e.g., combust or pyrolyze) a waste for the purpose of reducing its volume, destroying a hazardous chemical present in the waste, or destroying pathogens present in the waste. This includes facilities where waste heat is recovered as a byproduct from the exhaust gases from an incinerator, but does not include industrial processes where fuel derived from waste is fired as an energy source as a matter incidental to the manufacture of the primary product.

For the purpose of the Diox ins and Furans CWS, conical waste combusters are considered separately from other incineration sectors. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 6

Municipal solid waste: any waste which might normally be disposed of in a non-secure landfill site if not incinerated (i.e., including non-hazardous solid wastes regardless of origin), but is not intended to include "clean" wood waste. Clean wood waste means waste from woodworking or forest product operations where the wood waste has not been treated with preservative chemicals (e.g., pentachlorophenol) or decorative coatings.

Medical waste: any waste which includes as a component any Biomedical Waste as defined in the February 1992 CCME Guidelines for the Management of Biomedical Waste in Canada, with the exception that animal wastes derived from animal health care or veterinary research and teaching establishments are excluded. Determined efforts: Determined efforts include the ongoing review of opportunities for reductions and implementation of in-plant changes and/or emissions control upgrades that are technically and economically feasible and which confer on-going reductions in emissions.

Where possible, dioxin and furan emission reductions will be determined by way of a one-time stack test conducted after implementation of the measures. Where testing is not possible or will not provide reliable results, an audit of the dioxin and furan emission reductions associated with waste diversion or other measures is an acceptable alternative. Opportunities for regional consolidation and/or phase-out of smaller facilities may also be considered. Nature and application: Emission limits are expressed as a concentration in the exhaust gas exiting the stack of the facility.

New or expanding facilities will be expected to comply immediately with the standard, and it will be up to individual jurisdictions to determine what constitutes a significant expansion to trigger the standard. The limits for existing facilities are capable of being met using generally available technology or waste diversion. Larger facilities will he subject to stack testing as described in Annex 1 to verify compliance with the limit.

Smaller medical and municipal facilities will have the option of reporting on an audit of the dioxin and furan emission reductions associated with waste diversion or other measures or conducting a one-time stack test, to illustrate progress towards the standard. Numeric targets: The following standards are a step towards achieving virtual elimination for dioxins and furans.

For new or expanding facilities of any size, application of best available pollution prevention and control techniques, such as a waste diversion program, to achieve a maximum concentration' in the exhaust gases from the facility as follows: Municipal waste incineration 80pg I-TEQ/m3 Medical waste incineration 80pg I-TEQ/m3 I lazardous waste incineration2 80pg I-TEQ/m3 Sewage sludge incineration 80pg I-TEQ/m3 Stack concentrations of dioxins and furans will be corrected to 11% oxygen content for reporting purposes. 2 Hazardous waste incinerators do not include facilities that use waste derived fuel and do include facilities that burn low level radioactive waste.

June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 7

For existing facilities application of best available pollution prevention and control techniques, to achieve a maximum concentration' in the exhaust gases from the facility as follows: Municipal waste incineration > [48 or 26] Tonnes/year3 80pg I-TEQ/m3 < [48 or 26] Tonnes/year4 80pg I-TEQ/m3 Medical waste incineration [> 48 or 26 Tonnes/year]3 80pg I-TEQ/m3 V 48 or 26 Tonnes/year]4 80pg I-TEQ/m3 Hazardous waste incineration 2 80 pg I-TEQ/m3 Sewage sludge incineration 100 pg I-TEQ/m3 Timeframe for achieving the targets: Any new or expanding facility will be required to design for and achieve compliance immediately upon attaining normal full scale operation, compliance to be confirmed by annual stack testing..

Based on determined efforts in working towards virtual elimination, existing facilities will be required to meet the standards on the following schedule: Municipal waste incineration 2006 Medical waste incineration 2006 Hazardous waste incineration 2006 Sewage sludge incineration 2005 Pollution Prevention Strategy: In addition to the continuing efforts of waste incinerator operators to destroy or capture emissions of dioxin and furans, emphasis will be placed on identifying and implementing opportunities to prevent the creation of dioxins and furans as well as emissions of air pollutants and ash quality generally.

As an initial action with shared responsibility by all jurisdictions, strategies identifying opportunities to minimize waste incineration emissions of air pollutants including dioxins and furans will be developed through a multi-stakeholder process by December 31, 2001 to provide a framework for continual progress towards the elimination of dioxin and furans.

Recognizing that many opportunities for minimizing air pollutant and ash emissions and specifically avoiding the creation of dioxins and furans fall beyond the exclusive influence of the operators of waste incinerators, preparation of this strategy must engage a wide range of stakeholders. 3 Larger facilities must achieve this stack concentration as confirmed by annual testing. 4 Smaller facilities must make determined efforts to achieve this stack concentration.

The effectiveness of the pollution prevention measures will be established by way of a one-time stack test conducted after implementation of the plan or by the provision of an inventory documenting an audit of a waste diversion program, which is deemed an acceptable substitute. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 8

The range of issues to be addressed in developing the strategy could include: • waste diversion initiatives to minimize the generation of wastes destined for disposal (waste reduction, material reuse options) • waste segregation initiatives aimed at materials with greater potential to generate emissions of dioxins and furans or other air pollutants of concern (e.g., mercury, other heavy metals) and aimed at diverting those wastes to recycling or other non-incineration disposal options • combustion control strategies to optimize performance of existing combustors at destroying pollutants of concern • use of alternative disposal or treatment technologies (e.g., anaerobic digestion of wastes with material recovery and combustion of biogas)

PART 2: Reporting on Progress: Ministers will receive reports on progress in achieving the CWS by jurisdictions in Spring 2004 and Spring 2008. Ministers will ensure that a single public report is prepared and posted on the CCME web site for public access. The report in 2004 will reflect interim progress on achieving the CWSs. Progress on both implementation of the numeric targets and the activities applied as part of the determined efforts provisions for smaller medical waste and municipal solid waste facilities will be documented.

The 2008 report will evaluate whether targets have been met and the effectiveness of the determined efforts with respect to smaller facilities. More details on reporting are available in Annex 1. Each jurisdiction will detail the means of ensuring achievement of the CWS in a manner consistent with the typical or desired programs for the affected facility/sector, so as not to impose an unnecessary level of reporting duplication. With a view to continuous improvement towards the goal of virtual elimination, an evaluation of the Dioxin and Furan Canada-wide Standards will be presented to Ministers in Spring 2006.

The evaluation will consider new scientific, technical and economic information and provide an assessment of the need to develop the next set of CWS targets and timelines to continue progress toward virtual elimination. ADMINISTRATION: Jurisdictions will review and renew

Part 2 and Annex 1 five years from coming into effect. Any party may withdraw from these Canada-Wide Standards upon three month's notice. These Canada-Wide Standards comes into effect for each jurisdiction on the date of signature by the jurisdiction. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 9

MINISTERS of ENVIRONMENT ALBERTA BRITISH COLUMBIA CANADA MANITOBA NEW BRUNSWICK NEWFOUNDLAND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES NOVA SCOTIA NUNAVUT ONTARIO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND QUEBEC SASKATCHEWAN YUKON The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 10

Annex 1 Dioxins and Furans CWS Reporting Framework Introduction Under the Harmonization Accord and its Canada-wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement, all jurisdictions are to report to the public and to Ministers on their progress towards achieving the CWSs for dioxins and furans. This reporting framework is intended to provide a transparent and consistent mechanism for reporting by jurisdictions in a fashion which minimizes resource requirements for government and industry alike, while maximizing the availability of information on achievement of these standards.

The framework addresses: 1) frequency, timing and scope of reporting 2) guidance as to the means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS 3) common measurement parameters for reporting purposes 4) data management and public reporting Frequency, timing and scope of reporting The reporting

schedule will be tied into assessing the performance of the governments in meeting the benchmarks and timelines relevant to the standards. A report in 2004 will provide a means for tracking interim progress and report on additional technical studies (e.g. technology feasibility and pollution prevention options for the coastal pulp & paper sector). The 2008 report will indicate compliance with the standards for the coastal pulp and paper boiler and incineration sectors. Jurisdictions will submit sectoral data for inclusion in the progress reports in a timely manner.

To report on achievement of the CWS, a data report along with an assessment of progress will be compiled into a single report for Ministers and a public version will be posted on the CCME web site for public access. Reports will be limited to information on those facilities which are subject to achievement and/or compliance with the Canada-wide Standards as endorsed by the Ministers of the Environment (insert date) and as implemented variously by the responsible jurisdictions or industries.

This information is intended to show compliance rates and performance characteristics in a manner which documents sectoral performance as well as jurisdictional performance. It is not intended to provide a facility-by-facility record of performance. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 11

Means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS The Canada-wide Standards for dioxins and furans lend themselves to achievement through voluntary action, or through compliance with regulated or legally enforceable limits. As such, it is necessary to provide some means to ensure that a level playing field exists so that the numeric value provided in the CWS is applied equally or similarly in each jurisdictions.

One means to do this is to require identical compliance procedures, but this may require that some jurisdictions apply compliance procedures for dioxins and furans CWSs that are different than those used for locally determined or regulated parameters such as SO2, PM, ammonia, etc. An example is where the dioxins and furans CWS is expressed as the average of 3 stack tests,

whereas a jurisdiction may normally utilize the median value of 3 tests to determine compliance. In an effort to streamline implementation, each jurisdiction will determine the exact means of ensuring compliance/achievement in a manner consistent with the typical or desired programs for the affected facility/sector. It is anticipated that minor variations in jurisdictional requirements will result in minimal variation across the country which is insignificant with respect to the overall reduction activities which range from 50-99% for various facilities.

Common measurement parameters for reporting purposes Each facility report will include specific measures corrected so as to be compatible and consistent for the purposes of public reporting. Dioxin and furan emissions must be corrected for the 02 content of gases, to ensure compliance with the standards. Each jurisdiction will determine the sector within which each subject facility will be reported.

For example, a jurisdiction may determine that a small mixed waste incinerator (for example, burning both medical and municipal waste) may be subject to either standard, based upon the preponderance of waste (>50% as one type) or based upon the provincial designation of facility type. Sectoral assignments will be updated to reflect the most recent characteristics of the facility under consideration prior to reporting.

While little confusion is likely to exist over the implementation of dioxins and furans CWSs for "greenfield" facilities, it is possible that significantly expanded or modified facilities can/should be considered as new for the purposes of achievement/compliance with the dioxins and furans CWS. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdictions to determine at which point a facility no longer qualifies as an "existing" facility and must conform to the standard for "new or expanded" facilities as a result of significant modifications/alterations to the facility operations or physical plant.

Jurisdictions must report measurements that are below the detection limit in a consistent manner. These measurements should be reported as the limit of detection. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 12

Large facilities will generally be required to perform stack tests at an annual frequency in order to demonstrate compliance. However, jurisdictions may vary the stack testing requirements for these facilities in cases where performance has been consistently demonstrated to be below the Level of Quantification (LoQ) as defined by Environment Canada. Where five years' data has been accumulated with all results reported below the Lo(), the stack testing frequency may be revised to a biannual

schedule so long as all subsequent test results remain below the LoQ. For the purpose of reporting emissions, the most recent stack test results available should be used. Jurisdictions have the responsibility of deciding whether to implement this variance for all, some or none of the source types subject to these standards. Data management and public reporting Reports on achieving the CWSs will include a data report and a report on achievement of the standards. Sectoral and jurisdictional specific data will he supplied in a spreadshee - format to facilitate reporting.

A consolidated report will be made available to all jurisdictions and to the Ministers, along with the draft public report, prior to formal release of the public report. The public report will be released upon approval by the Council of Ministers. Jurisdictions will provide a report in spreadsheet format so that the data report and report on achievement can be prepared along with the public report for review and approval. Reports will be prepared and distributed to all jurisdictions prior to review by Ministers.

Along with the report on achievement, a draft public report will be provided for review and consideration prior to the Ministers' meeting at which public release is anticipated. That public report will be posted to the CCME web site upon approval by the Ministers. Jurisdictions are encouraged to provide reference to the CCME web site and/or pointers in their own web sites in order to ensure a single location for dioxins and furans CWSs reporting should errors/miscalculations have to be corrected at some time.

In addition to the consolidated public reporting on dioxins and furans CWSs, jurisdictions must provide a contact for facility-specific information in the advent that the public wishes to access compliance or achievement information. Such data wiJ be supplied in a manner consistent with the normal data-reporting/compliance reporting procedures of the jurisdiction in question - the consolidated spreadsheet will not be made publicly available in that it may include proprietary (business) information. June 6,2000 Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans 13

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PHC) IN SOIL Accepted June 6, 2000 for Endorsement in November 2000 June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbors in Soil Page 1 of 8

CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PHC) IN SOIL These Canada-Wide Standards (CWS) for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil are established pursuant to the 1998 Canada-wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and its Canada-wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement. The PHC CWS is a remedial standard for contaminated soil and subsoil occurring in four land use categories.

The standard is grounded in the science of risk assessment and can be applied at any of three "Tiers": Tier 1 — generic numerical levels; Tier 2 — adjustments to Tier 1 levels based on site-specific information; Tier 3 — site-specific risk assessment. The same high level of environmental and human health protection is required at all three tiers. Because the PHC CWS is tiered and risk-based there is necessarily some complexity in its development and application. Details regarding development and application of the standards are provided in a Technical Supplement.

The PHC CWS was developed with the input of four multistakeholder technical advisory groups and one dedicated working group involving the Canadian oil and gas industry, government and an academic chair. The PHC CWS represents a consensus view of the national Development Committee, developed with the assistance and input of the technical advisory groups. RATIONALE Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) are used in nearly every facet of Canadian life.

They provide energy to heat our homes and places of work, fuel our transportation systems, power manufacturing processes and tools, as well as providing a source for the numerous synthetic materials we take for granted in our lives. Used as intended, PHC provide great benefits to society. However, when released to the soil environment as raw feedstocks or refined fuels or lubricants, a number of problems can result. These include fire/explosion hazard, human and environmental toxicity, movement through soil to air or water, odour, and impairment of soil processes such as water retention and nutrient cycling.

About 60% of Canada's contaminated sites involve petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) contamination that, left unaddressed, impairs the quality and uses of both land and water. Presently, management of these sites across Canada varies considerably and generally lacks an adequate scientific basis — resulting in over- and under-management. Where over-management occurs, land sale transactions and real estate redevelopment are limited by remediation costs. Under-managed sites continue to pose risks to human and environmental health.

The PHC Canada-wide Standard will provide a consistent approach to managing P1-IC-contaminated sites across the country. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Page 2 of 8

DEFINITIONS Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) is a general term used to describe mixtures of organic compounds found in or derived from geological substances such as oil, bitumen and coal. For the purposes of this CWS, PHC are considered to be comprised of 4 fractions as defined in

Part 1. PHC exclude — for the purposes of this standard — known carcinogens such as benzene and benzo(a)pyrene, which are addressed as target compounds. Because of the relatively long history of managing toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes ("TEX") as target compounds, these are also excluded from PHC. CONTEXT Petroleum products released to the environment typically contain thousands of compounds, in varying proportions, composed predominantly of carbon and hydrogen, with minor amounts of nitrogen, sulphur and oxygen.

The properties of PHC contamination in soils varies with the petroleum source, soil type, the composition, degree of processing (crude, blended or refined), and the extent of weathering caused by exposure to the environment. The complexity of PHC, and the extreme variability of sources and site-specific circumstances, complicates assessment of the human and environmental health risks associated with PHC contamination in soil. PHC contamination in soil is a concern for a number of reasons.

First, the chemically reactive nature and volatility of PHC can pose a fire/explosion hazard, especially if vapours enter confined spaces. Second, most PHC constituents are toxic to some degree. Third, lighter hydrocarbons (i.e. those of lower molecular weights) are mobile and can become a problem at considerable distances from their point of release due to transport in ground, water or air. Fourth, larger and branched-chain hydrocarbons are persistent in the environment. Fifth, PHC may create aesthetic problems such as offensive odour, taste or appearance in environmental media.

Finally, under some conditions, PHC can degrade soil quality by interfering with water retention and transmission, and with nutrient supplies. Canadian regulatory agencies have responded to these concerns with assessment and remediation requirements where PHC contaminate soils and groundwater. A blend of generic guidelines and site-specific, risk-based approaches has emerged across Canada, but there is very little consistency across jurisdictions in the rationale for guidelines, numerical values provided, or application to land uses.

June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Page 3 of 8

The CWS is founded on documented and scientifically defensible risk-based methodology, namely the CCME Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines and the American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) Risk-based Corrective Action (RBCA) - and additions/improvements thereon, including the Atlantic Partners in RBCA Implementation (PIRI) (see Technical Supplement, ssction 1). Consequently, the derivation of the CWS involves explicitly listed receptors - both human and ecological, and the levels of protection accorded.

It also involves defined exposure scenarios, and documented underlying assumptions, equations and policies (see Technical Supplement, sections 1 and 2). Moreover, a vast array of analytical chemistry options exists for quantifying hydrocarbons in soil. Various methods have been developed to measure most or part of the hydrocarbons present in a sample based on different sampling, storage, extraction, purification, quantification, and data treatment approaches. Lack of measurement standardization has led to high variability in results and confusion for users of the data.

The PHC CWS includes an analytical reference method to promote consistency in PHC- in-soil measurement practices and to ensure comparability of data nationally (see Technical Supplement,

section 4). The CWS Tier-1 levels have been selected despite gaps and uncertainties in some of the information used to support them. Nevertheless, the information available is sufficient to conclude that implementing the CWS will protect the environment and is technically and economically feasible. In this regard, jurisdictions will have considerable flexibility in the detailed design of jurisdictional plans and an opportunity to reduce information gaps and uncertainties.

PART 1: NUMERICAL TARGETS and TIMEFRAMES The PlIC CWS is a remedial standard. The standard does not specify timelines that jurisdictions must follow in remediating PHC contaminated sites. Rather, it specifies consistent methods and outcomes for assessment and management of such sites. The CWS requires jurisdictions to commit to timelines for implementation of this consistent assessment and management approach, however.

The PFIC CWS is based on the assessment and consistent management of risks posed to human, plants, animals and environmental processes under four common uses of land - agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial, and industrial. 'Ile standard is laid out in three tiers, which incorporate different amounts of site-specific information. Environmental and human health protection goals do not change between the tiers. Additional site-specific information available at Tiers 2 and 3 is used to manage risks through more precise knowledge of actual or potential exposure.

June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Page 4 of 8

The environmental and human health protection goals of the PHC CWS are stated in the Tier 1 levels. A

summary of Tier 1 levels is provided in Table 1. Additional Tier 1 levels are provided in the Technical Supplement along with Tier 2 and Tier 3 guidance. To develop these levels, the Development Committee identified -- in consultation with stakeholders -- for each land use: (1) the receptors and resources to be protected, (2) the pathways by which each could be exposed, and (3) the tolerable exposure along all applicable receptor/exposure pathway combinations.

These tolerable exposures acknowledge that people may experience PHC exposures unrelated to contaminated soil and adjustments for known or expected exposures are made. Under Tier 1 and many Tier-2 approaches, exposures are managed below the tolerable level through reduction of PHC concentrations in the soil. Some Tier-2 and Tier-3 approaches achieve the same result by reducing exposures through engineered and/or institutional controls. The former approach is preferred; however, the latter is needed in some cases as indicated by socio- economic considerations.

Irrespective of the approach chosen, the same high level of environmental and human health protection is required at each Tier. Tier-1 levels are used when the proponent accepts the base assumptions and parameters in the Tier-1 exposure scenario. Tier-2 levels may be generated and used when site conditions exist that significantly modify the exposure and risk scenarios. Tier-3 levels are based on site-specific assessment and management of risks. The PHC CWS implementation differs from other CWS.

The trigger for remedial action is usually the need to act on a site-by-site basis to accommodate a new or intensified land use, and thus avoid human and ecological exposure to PHC during the modified land use. In such cases, the timeframe for achieving target cleanup levels at a particular site will depend largely upon the timeframe associated with the proposed land use for the site. The CWS will also find application in the cleanup and restoration phases of responses to pollution emergencies involving petroleum products and crude oils.

One of the guiding principles of the CCME Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines is that impairment of relatively clean soil up to guideline levels is not advocated. Consistent with the principle, the PHC CWS target levels are not intended to be used as 'pollute-up-to levels' for uncontaminated land.

Tier 1: Numerical Levels for Different Land Uses Tier-1 numerical levels are summarized in Table 1, where: • "Fraction" refers to the equivalent normal straight-chain hydrocarbon (nC) boiling point ranges (Fraction #1: nC6 to nC10; Fraction #2: >nC 10 to nC16; Fraction #3: >nC16 to nC34; and, Fraction #4: nC35+). • "Coarse" means coarse-textured soil having a median grain size of >75 p.m as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Page 5 of 8

• "Fine" means fine-textured soil having a median grain size of <75 pm as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials.. • Levels without parentheses do not include consideration of the soil-to-groundwater contamination pathway. • Levels within parentheses do include protection of groundwater. Table 1.

Summary of Tier 1 Levels (m 2/k2) for surface soil.* Land Use Soil Texture Fraction 1 Fraction 2 Fraction 3 Fraction 4 Agricultural Coarse-grained soil 130 450 (90a) 400 2800 Fine-grained soil 260 (1801) 900 (250b) 800 5600 Residential/ Parkland Coarse-grained soil 30` 150c (90a) 900 (2508 400 800 2800 5600 Fine-grained soil 260

(180) Commercial Coarse-grained soil 310 (300.a), 660 (180b) 760 (90a) 1500 (250b) 1700 2500 3300 6600 Fine-grained soil industrial Coarse-grained soil 310 (300a) 760 (90a) 1700 3300 Fine-grained soil 660 (180b) 1500 (250b) 2500 6600 Additional Tier I levels are presented in Technical Supplement. a= Where applicable, for protection against contaminated groundwater discharge to an adjacent surface water body. b= Where applicable, for protection of potable groundwater. c= assumes contamination near residence with slab-on-grade construction.

Tier 2: Site-specific Adjustments to Tier-1 Levels Tier-2 levels may be generated and used when site-specific information indicates that site conditions exist that modify human or ecological exposure to PHC contamination and, thereby, alter risks significantly, relative to the generic conditions used to derive Tier-1 levels. Thus, Tier-2 levels are derived on a site-by-site basis using site-specific parameters where necessary; the potentially adjustable parameters and corresponding calculation protocols are summarized and referenced in the Technical Supplement (section 2).

Tier 3: Site-specific Risk Assessment and Management The process of developing site-specific cleanup levels and related management options requires the appropriate use of both general and site-specific information. Background information and guiding principles have been established to direct and focus this process, and are documented in the Guidance Manual for Developing Site-specific Soil Quality Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME 1996). The use of these guiding principles in developing Tier 3 standards is outlined in the Technical Supplement.

June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Page 6 of 8

Additional guidance in this connection is also available in A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance (CCME, 1995) and Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol 1 (USEPA 1989). Other appropriate guidance may also be available from the appropriate jurisdictional authority.

PART 2: IMPLEMENTATION Because environmental issues related to PHC release to soil are principally limited to intra-jurisdictional effects, Clause 6.1 of the CWS Sub-agreement applies for this CWS. This means that specific measures undertaken by each government to meet this CWS will be at the discretion of each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions agree to review current programs and tools and, as required, develop and activate jurisdictional implementation plans to integrate the CWS or ensure equal or better protection.

REVIEW The CWS will be reviewed as follows: By the end of year 2003, review of additional scientific, technical and economic analysis to reduce information gaps and uncertainties and allow revision of the PHC CWS in the year 2005 as appropriate. REPORTING on PROGRESS Progress towards meeting the above provisions will be reported as follows: (

a) to the respective publics of each jurisdiction on a regular basis, the timing and scope of reporting to be determined by each jurisdiction; and, (

b) to Ministers, with comprehensive reports at five-year intervals beginning in year 2003. ADMINISTRATION Jurisdictions will review and renew

Part 2 and the Annexes five years from coming into effect. Any party may withdraw from these Canada-wide Standards upon three month's notice. These Canada-wide Standards come into effect for each jurisdicstion on the date of signature by the jurisdiction. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Page 7 of 8

MINISTERS of ENVIRONMENT ALBERTA BRITISH COLUMBIA CANADA MANITOBA NEW BRUNSWICK NEWFOUNDLAND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES NOVA SCOTIA NUNAVUT ONTARIO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND QUEBEC SASKATCHEWAN YUKON The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable - Date The Honourable Date The Honourable - Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Page 8 of 8 June 6, 2000

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CANADA-WIDE STANDARD for MERCURY IN DENTAL AMALGAMS Accepted June 6, 2000 for Endorsement in November 2000 June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury in Dental Arna!gams 1

CANADA-WIDE STANDARD for MERCURY in DENTAL AMALGAMS

PREAMBLE The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment determined that mercury levels in fish and wildlife across Canada warrant efforts to reduce atmospheric and waterborne emissions derived from both deliberate use of mercury and from incidental releases of mercury. Restrictions on the human consumption of fish in order to safeguard the health of both high fish consumers (sustenance and commercial fishers) and sensitive populations (infants, children and women of childbearing age) are widespread.

Some of these restrictions are derived from lakes naturally high in mercury, others in lakes and rivers contaminated by historical point source discharges and still others in waters remote from identifiable sources. Traditional lifestyles may be profoundly influenced by mercury contamination. Mercury levels in fish pose an additional, largely unquantified risk to fish-eating wildlife. Isolated examples of toxicity to loons and otters suggest the potential for large scale and/or widespread impacts.

Just as mercury levels in fish affect their consumption by humans, some levels in fish may affect wildlife which consume them. In both instances, the mercury causing the impacts is derived from both natural and anthropogenic sources. The combined impacts of mercury contamination in Canada are difficult to quantify. The exact proportion of the impact which can be ascribed to natural mercury and to past and present anthropogenic releases cannot presently be quantified.

Because it is a natural and persistent bioaccumulative element which can be transported many miles in the atmosphere, mercury can have impacts many years and many miles removed from its original source. The sediment record from remote lakes has been generally interpreted to support a 2 to 3 fold increase in mercury deposition over natural levels. A common thread through all mercury impacts is that deposition to water bodies from anthropogenic emissions poses a threat to human and ecosystem health, and that reduced deposition will contribute, in time, to reduced impacts.

Under a variety of regional, national, binational and international programs, treaties and agreements, mercury has been consistently targeted for emission reductions. Such a policy position is consistent with the CCME Policy for the Management of Toxic Substances which identifies that mercury shall be managed through its lifecycle to minimize releases. This is also consistent with the precautionary approach endorsed in the Harmonization Accord and Canada Wide Standards Sub-agreement.

Ministers of the Environment have thus agreed to undertake and promote cost-effective actions to achieve further precautionary reductions in anthropogenic emissions (releases to the air, water and soil) of mercury. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury in Dental Amalgams 2

A Canada-wide Standard for dental amalgam has been proposed below. The proposed Canada- wide Standard is intended to address significant "points of intervention" in the complex life-cycle of this material so as to reduce environmental releases of mercury. A major consideration was what final "end of life" fate was "appropriate" for mercury products. Evidence suggests that landfilling produces mercury emissions at the working face of the landfill, as trucks dump the garbage and it is compacted and covered.

Dental amalgam, plus other mercury containing products such as lamps, batteries, thermostats, old paints etc., may produce some emissions even when covered with soil, as a result of methane gas formation and release, as well as some losses via leachate. For other "products" the end-of-life may be a hazardous waste landfill, an incinerator or even farm fields. Dental amalgam may contribute about 800 kg/yr to sewage systems, 800 kg/yr to municipal garbage and landfills, 350 kg/yr to biomedical waste and 250 kg/yr to recycling. These estimates have not been confirmed by the dental community.

Based upon the measured or potential emissions from deliberate use of dental amalgam, approaches to improve control over this product during its life-cycle were investigated for ways to reduce mercury emissions. This standard represents cost-effective "interventions" in the life- cycle of the material in question to reduce releases without eliminating the beneficial use of this product. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury .n Dental Amalgams 3

PART 1: Dental Amalgam' Rationale for standard Dental amalgam remains a well-suited material for the restoration of dental health in Canada, though the development of synthetic resins and other substitutes has resulted in a decline in the use of amalgam. Approximately 1.3 T/yr of mercury in new filling material is placed each year in the mouths of Canadians. However, approximately 2 Tonnes/yr of mercury in amalgam waste is generated from the removal of old fillings and from the placing of new fillings.

Some is collected and recycled or properly disposed of, while some other amalgam particles may end up in the sewage systems, contaminating the biosolids produced or being discharged to the aquatic environment. It is believed that more than 1/3 of the mercury loadings to sewage systems is derived from dental practices. For this reason the standard seeks to reduce emissions from dental offices. More details can be found in Appendix 1.

Nature and application: The dental community in Canada can use amalgam traps to collect the waste before it enters the sewage systems and either recycle the waste amalgam or dispose of it appropriately. Collected waste amalgam fails most leachate tests, and as such is normally designated as "hazardous" so that once collected it must be stored, shipped and disposed of in accordance with provincial waste regulations. The objective of the Canada-wide Standard is to substantially reduce releases of mercury in waste amalgam from dental practices.

Numeric targets and timeframes: The Canada-wide Standard is the application of "best management practices2" to achieve an 95% national reduction in mercury releases from dental amalgam waste discharges to the environment3, by 2005, from a base year of 2000. 1 Quantities reported refer to the amount of mercury in the dental waste stream (i.c. the mercury content in the amalgam). 2 Best Management Practises are defined as including the use of an ISO certified amalgam trap, or equivalent, and appropriate management of waste so mercury does not entire the environment.

Appropriate management may include land/illing in a confined, engineered landfill with leachate collection systems, such as a hazardous waste landfill, recycling to either produce new amalgam or raw mercuty, silver and copper for other uses, or stabilization/immobilization in a form that can he retired permanently. 3 Environment includes soils, water, air and municipal waste landfills, the later in recognition that mercury is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, and may leach from landfills or be emitted with landfill gas. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury in Dental Amalgams 4

PART 2: REPORTING ON PROGRESS: Ministers will receive reports by jurisdictions and/or partners in the delivery of this standard in 2004 and 2007, and will ensure that a single public report is prepared and posted on the CCME web site for public access. The report in 2004 will reflect interim progress on achieving the CWS. The 2007 report will include an evaluation of this standard and a recommendation whether changes should be considered.

These reports will be accompanied by other information on additional outcomes, activities, research or issues which are relevant to the mercury CWS and/or product sector under consideration. Examples of such reporting include scientific information on mercury fate, and impacts from product life-cycles, such as methylation in sewage treatment plants. More details on reporting on progress are available in Annex 1.

Each jurisdiction will detail the means of obtaining achievement in a manner consistent with the typical or desired programs for the affected sector, so as not to impose an unnecessary level of reporting duplication upon the jurisdictions. ADMINISTRATION: Jurisdictions will review and renew

Part 2 and Annex 1 five years from coming into effect. Any party may withdraw from this Canada-Wide Standard upon three month's notice. This Canada-Wide Standard comes into effect for each jurisdiction on the date of signature by the jurisdiction. June 6,2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury in Dental Amalgams 5

MINISTERS of ENVIRONMENT ALBERTA The Honourable Date BRITISH COLUMBIA The Honourable Date CANADA The Honourable Date MANITOBA The Honourable Date NEW BRUNSWICK The Honourable Date NEWFOUNDLAND The Honourable Date NORTHWEST TERRITORIES The Honourable Date NOVA SCOTIA The Honourable Date NUNAVUT The Honourable Date ONTARIO The Honourable Date PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND The Honourable Date QUEBEC The Honourable Date SASKATCHEWAN The Honourable Date YUKON The Honourable Date June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury in Dental Amalgams 6

Annex 1 Mercury Reporting Framework Introduction Under the Harmonization Accord and its Canada-wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement, all jurisdictions are to report to the public and to Ministers on their progress towards achieving the CWSs for mercury. This reporting framework is intended to provide a transparent and consistent mechanism for reporting by jurisdictions in a fashion which minimizes resource requirements for government and industry alike, while maximizing the availability of information on achievement of these standards.

The framework addresses: 1) frequency, timing and scope of reporting 2) guidance as to the means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS 3) common measurement parameters for reporting purposes 4) data management and public reporting Frequency, timing and scope of reporting The reporting

schedule will be tied to assessing the performance of the governments and partners in meeting the benchmarks and timelines relevant to the standards. The report issued in 2004 will include intermediate progress by this product sector and the report in 2007 will provide an overall evaluation of compliance for the standard and any recommendations for revisions. Jurisdictions and partners will cooperate to produce a single public report, under the guidance of CCME, to be posted on the CCME web site for public access. This information is intended to show performance on a national basis.

Means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS The Canada-wide Standard for dental amalgam has been developed with a view towards a largely voluntary approach. Compliance may be regulated or legally enforced in some areas, such as sewer use bylaws in municipalities. As such, it is important that governments and/or partners work together to share information in the event that some regional implementation takes place, so that adjustments can be made to ensure that a level playing field exists. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury in Dental Amalgams 7

Common measurement parameters for reporting purposes Each report will include specific measures for the purposes of public reporting:

a) Dental amalgam quantities (kg mercury in waste amalgam) collected, recycled and disposed of, along with the number of dentists adopting best practices; and

b) Average weighted mercury content of sewage sludge, as a means of tracking progress of dental and other sewer control activities. Data management and public reporting A consolidated data-report will be made available to all jurisdictions and to the Ministers, along with the draft public report, prior to formal release of the public report. The public report will be released upon approval by the ( anadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Jurisdictions will provide a report prior to September 30 (2004 and 2007) so that the consolidated report can be prepared for review and approval.

A draft public report will be provided for review and consideration prior to the Ministers' meeting at which public release is anticipated. That public report will be posted to the CCME web site upon approval by the Council of Ministers. Jurisdictions are encouraged to provide reference to the CCME web site and/or pointers in their own web sites in order to ensure a single location for mercury CWSs reporting should errors/miscalculations have to b.; corrected at some time.

In addition to the consolidated public reporting on mercury CWSs, jurisdictions must provide a contact for additional information in the advent that the public wishes to access achievement information. Such data will be supplied in a manner consistent with the normal data- reporting/compliance reporting procedures of the jurisdiction in question. June 6,2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury in Dental Amalgams 8

Appendix 1: Detailed rationale for dental amalgam standard Mercury use as a component of dental amalgam has been a mainstay of dental health in Canada for decades. Currently, about 1.3 T/yr of mercury in new amalgam is placed in patients' mouths in Canada. It remains the material of choice for filling grinding surfaces of teeth, except where the patient may have an amalgam sensitivity. Amalgam is also the filling of choice in some communities where it is the most cost-effective material, but it is being used less and less as alternatives are developed.

These alternatives may be used for cosmetic purposes or because of patient choice. It is the removal of old fillings that creates the "life-cycle issue", as removal results in amalgam particles being vacuumed from the mouth, and discharged to sewage systems. Although it is very difficult to inventory the waste discharge of amalgam, it is believed that 2 Tonnes/yr of mercury in dental amalgam waste is generated from the removal of old fillings. The fate of this waste is complex.

The coarse particles of waste amalgam, representing 60-70% by mass of the old fillings, are collected in chair-side traps and filters, and may be either recycled, disposed of in solid waste, or rinsed into sewage systems. About 25-35% of the fillings mass (800 kg/yr of mercury) is made up of fine particles that are discharged to sewage systems. These particles contaminate sewage treatment plant grit traps and sludges.

About 5% of the amalgam fillings end up as extremely fine particles or dissolved mercury in waste water, which may not be captured in a sewage treatment plant and may he discharged to the aquatic environment. The dental community is composed of health care professionals who share a concern for the environment. Representatives of the profession have been working with governments to develop "best management practices" and "codes of practice" for waste management within dental clinics.

One of the major components of these discussions is the implementation of amalgam traps that capture 95% of the amalgam particles (coarse and moderately sized) before the waste enters the sewers. Less than 1% of Canada's 13,000 dentists who do amalgam placement and removal (of a total of 15,000 dentists) currently employee amalgam traps on ti-,eir sewerage lines, despite the availability of ISO Certified units capable of a 95% capture rate.

This shortfall reflects the recent availability of the equipment, the requirement to set up the recycling infrastructure, government regulations that may be a barrier to recycling and, to a lesser degree, the costs involved. In addition, there is some debate whether the amalgam discharged from dental offices poses an environmental threat, as it is considered by some dental groups to be "inert". Several concerns have led to the proposal that adoption of amalgam traps by Canada's dentists is appropriate.

The precautionary principle would suggest using waste diversion, if cost-effective, to limit environmental releases in the absence of conclusive proof that the amalgam particles are inert. Also there is some concern that the fine particles discharged by dentists (along with mercury from other sources) may result in the emission of methyl-mercury to the atmosphere through microbial action in the sewers and/or sewage treatment plants.

Finally evidence from some European investigations suggests that installation of amalgam traps reduces the discharge of mercury from sewage treatment plants into lakes and rivers, where fish may be accumulating mercury that would pose a threat to wildlife or human consumers. June 6, 2000 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury in Dental Amalgams 9

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CANADA-WIDE STANDARD for MERCURY-CONTAINING LAMPS Accepted June 6, 2000 for Endorsement in April 2001 April 30, 2001 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury-Containing Lamps 1

CANADA-WIDE STANDARD for MERCURY-CONTAINING LAMPS

PREAMBLE The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment determined that mercury levels in fish and wildlife across Canada warrant efforts to reduce atmospheric and waterborne emissions derived from both deliberate use of mercury and from incidental releases of mercury. Restrictions on the human consumption of fish in order to safeguard the health of both high fish consumers (sustenance and commercial fishers) and sensitive populations (infants, children and women of childbearing age) are widespread.

Some of these restrictions are derived from lakes naturally high in mercury, others in lakes and rivers contaminated by historical point source discharges and still others in waters remote from identifiable sources. Traditional lifestyles may be profoundly influenced by mercury contamination. Mercury levels in fish pose an additional, largely unquantified risk to fish-eating wildlife. Isolated examples of toxicity to loons and otters suggest the potential for large scale and/or widespread impacts.

Just as mercury levels in fish affect their consumption by humans, some levels in fish may affect wildlife which consume them. In both instances, the mercury causing the impacts is derived from both natural and anthropogenic sources. The combined impacts of mercury contamination in Canada are difficult to quantify. The exact proportion of the impact which can be ascribed to natural mercury and to past and present anthropogenic releases cannot presently be quantified.

Because it is a natural and persistent bioaccumulative element which can be transported many kilometers in the atmosphere, mercury can have impacts many years and many kilometers removed from its original source. The sediment record from remote lakes has been generally interpreted to support a two to three-fold increase in mercury deposition over natural levels. A common thread through all mercury impacts is that deposition to water bodies from anthropogenic emissions poses a threat to human and ecosystem health, and that reduced deposition will contribute, in time, to reduced impacts.

Under a variety of regional, national, binational and international programs, treaties and agreements, mercury has been consistently targeted for emission reductions. Such a policy position is consistent with the CCME Policy for the Management of Toxic Substances which identifies that mercury shall be managed through its life-cycle to minimize releases. This is also consistent with the precautionary approach endorsed in the Harmonization Accord and Canada Wide Standards Sub-agreement.

Ministers of the Environment have thus agreed to undertake and promote cost-effective actions to achieve further precautionary reductions in anthropogenic emissions (releases to the air, water and soil) of mercury. Mercury-containing lamps are an extremely efficient lighting medium, using less electricity than incandescent lamps. Because they use less power per unit of light, use of mercury-containing April 30, 2001 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury-Containing Lamps 2

lamps results in fewer emissions of smog-causing gases, greenhouse gases, and mercury from fossil-fueled electric power plants. Nevertheless, mercury-containing lamps still emit 180 kg/yr of mercury vapour to the atmosphere during their life-cycle: 40 kg/yr (or 22%) is emitted during lamp manufacturing, transport, landfilling, and incineration; while 140 kg/yr (or 78%) is emitted indirectly from power plants. Another 1,150 kg/yr is sent to landfills, where the fate of the mercury is poorly understood.

The Canada-wide Standard for mercury-containing lamps takes a pollution prevention approach to reducing environmental releases of mercury, by reducing the mercury content of lamps sold in Canada in the first place. This approach to mercury-containing lamps will reduce subsequent emissions at four stages in the life-cycle of lamps: during lamp manufacturing; during transport; during landfilling; and during incidental incineration.

In the short term governments should encourage recycling of mercury-containing lamps where the infrastructure allows, while encouraging safe disposal in the long term as the mercury content of lamps is reduced.

PART 1: Rationale for standard Mercury-containing lamps the bulk of which are 4-foot T-12 fluorescent lamps) contain between 7 and 40 milligrams of mercury each, and when they are manufactured, broken or disposed of, they release their mercury contents to different parts of the environment' Although these lamps contain mercury, it is accepted that they are more energy efficient and longer lasting than incandescent lamps. Other types of lamps (e.g., metal halide and high pressure sodium lamps) contain different amounts of mercury.

Given that mercury emissions (landfilling) depend heavily upon the mercury content of the lamps, it is felt that industry-led initiatives aimed at reducing the mercury content of lamps are the most appropriate intervention to reduce releases to the environment. When lamps bum-out, they normally contain less than 1 mg mercury vapour, which is released when the lamp is broken, resulting in some mercury emissions but the mercury also can be emitted through the incineration of lamps in municipal waste.

Waste lamps, whether broken or intact, contribute about 1150 kg/yr of mercury to landfill each year bound to the phosphor in the glass. This mercury may be emitted with methane gas or landfill leachate, though accurate inventories are not available for either emission. 1 Environment includes soils, water, air and municipal waste landfills, the latter in recognition that mercury is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, and may leach from conventional landfills or be emitted with landfill gas. April 30, 2001 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury-Containing Lamps 3

Nature and application: The manufacturers of mercury-containing lamps have been successful at reducing the mercury content of standard 4-foot T-12 lamps, the average content declining from 48 mg/lamp in 1985 to 12 mg/lamp today. Ongoing efforts to reduce mercury use will translate directly into reduced emissions due to breakage and reduced mercury going into landfills. Approximately 75% of mercury-containing lamps in Canada are 4 foot (T-8 or T-12) fluorescent lamps. The major uses of mercury-containing lamps are in industrial, commercial and institutional applications.

Currently about one-third of the lighting market is composed of T-8 lamps, which are more energy efficient than the older T-12 lamps. In the pursuit of energy efficiency, and to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, more energy efficient lighting systems are expected to be installed in large buildings in Canada, and the rate of installation can be accelerated. It is also reasonable to pursue recycling of lamps with the understanding that while emissions from landfills' appear to be low, lamps may not survive the transport to a landfill site intact.

Emissions of mercury at the working face of the landfill can be significant due to breakage. Hence, recycling at the end of the life-cycle — or directly intercepting mercury emissions by using mercury-capturing "crushers" prior to confined landfilling -- can recover about one tonne per year of mercury that otherwise would be released to the environment. These further reductions in mercury going to landfills may be pursued where the infrastructure and level of concern are sufficient. Option 1: Recycling of lamps is in place in some jurisdictions.

In other jurisdictions, the net benefit of a lamp recycling program may be insignificant or not appropriate due to geography or priorities. In light of environmental benefits and solid waste management priorities, jurisdictions will continue, or develop, lamp recovery and recycling initiatives. Option 2: As a complementary activity, jurisdictions will evaluate -- where appropriate — the environmental merits and feasibility of mercury-lamp recovery/recycling and initiate efforts to encourage recycling and the safe disposal of used lamps consistent with their findings.

Objective The objective of this Canada-wide Standard is to reduce mercury releases to the environment by reducing the mercury content of lamps, and by encouraging recycling and the safe disposal of used lamps (see the Initial Actions). 2 Conventional landfilling results in emissions during lamp collection and dumping due to lamp breakage, and exposure of the broken lamps to air, rain and sunlight. Systems are available to collect used lamps that filter mercury vapour as the lamps are broken, so that the residue can be landfilled without direct atmospheric emissions, or sent for recycling.

Lamp recycling is the preferred end-of-life and landfilling should only take place when the lamp residues are not considered hazardous and will remain contained. April 30, 2001 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury-Containing Lamps 4

Numeric targets and timeframes: The CWS is a 70% reduction by 2005 and an 80% reduction by 2010 in the average content of mercury in all mercury-containing lamps sold in Canada, from a 1990 baseline.

PART 2: REPORTING ON PROGRESS: Ministers will receive reports by jurisdictions and/or partners in the delivery of this standard in 2004, 2007 and 2012, and will ensure that a single public report is prepared and posted on the CCME web site for public access. The report in 2004 will reflect actions by governments, and in 2007 will reflect broader progress on achieving the CWS. The 2012 report will include an evaluation of this standard and a recommendation whether changes should be considered.

These reports will be accompanied by other information on additional outcomes, activities, research or issues which are relevant to the mercury CWS under consideration. Examples of such reporting include scientific information on mercury fate and impacts from product life- cycles. More details on reporting on progress are in Annex 1. Each jurisdiction will detail the means of obtaining achievement in a manner consistent with the typical or desired programs for the affected sector, so as not to impose an unnecessary level of reporting duplication upon the jurisdictions.

ADMINISTRATION: Jurisdictions will review and renew

Part 2 and Annex 1 five years from coming into effect. Any party may withdraw from this Canada-Wide Standard upon three month's notice. This Canada-Wide Standard comes into effect for each jurisdiction on the date of signature by the jurisdiction. April 30, 2001 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury-Containing Lamps 5

MINISTERS of ENVIRONMENT ALBERTA BRITISH COLUMBIA CANADA MANITOBA NEW BRUNSWICK NEWFOUNDLAND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES NOVA SCOTIA NUNAVUT ONTARIO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND QUEBEC SASKATCHEWAN YUKON The Honourable Dat • The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date The Honourable Date April 30, 2001 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury-Containing Lamps 6

Annex 1 Mercury Reporting Framework Introduction Under the Harmonization Accord and its Canada-wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement, all jurisdictions are to report to the public and to Ministers on their progress towards achieving the CWS for mercury. This reporting framework is intended to provide a transparent and consistent mechanism for reporting by jurisdictions in a fashion which minimizes resource requirements for government and industry alike, while maximizing the availability of information on achievement of the CWS.

The framework addresses: 1) frequency, timing and scope of reporting 2) guidance as to the means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS 3) common measurement parameters for reporting purposes 4) data management and public reporting Frequency, timing and scope of reporting The reporting

schedule will be tied to assessing the performance of the governments and partners in meeting the benchmarks and timelines relevant to the standards. The reports issued in 2004 and 2007 will include intermediate progress by the manufacturing sector and the third report in 2012 will provide an overall evaluation of compliance and any recommendations for revisions. Jurisdictions and partners will cooperate to produce a single public report, under the guidance of CCME, to be posted on the CCME web site for public access. This information is intended to show performance on a national basis.

Means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS The Canada-wide Standard for mercury-containing lamps has been developed with a view towards a largely voluntary approach undertaken by lamp manufacturers. A commitment has been made by the major lamp manufacturers to reduce their use of mercury in lamps — progress will be closely monitored, to ensure achievement of the CWS. Additional voluntary efforts to address other aspects of the lamp life-cycle also may be made by jurisdictions. April 30, 2001 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury-Containing Lamps 7

Common measurement parameters for reporting purposes Each report will include, for the purposes of public reporting: • a measure of the average mercury content (4 foot T-12 fluorescent lamps) in mercury- containing lamps, as reported by the Electro-Federation Canada; and • the actions taken to achieve these levels. As well, jurisdictions may report, where appropriate, on their programs to recycle lamps and/or to safely dispose of used lamps, and on any other actions taken to address the other parts of the lamp life-cycle in order to further reduce emissions.

Data management and public reporting A consolidated data-report will be made available to all jurisdictions and to the Ministers, along with the draft public report, prior to formal release of the public report. The public report will be released upon approval by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Jurisdictions will provide a report prior to September 30 (2004, 2007, 2012) so that the consolidated report can be prepared for review and approval. A draft public report will be provided for review and consideration prior to the Ministers' meeting at which public release is anticipated.

That public report will be posted to the CCME web site upon approval by the Council of Ministers. Jurisdictions are encouraged to provide reference to the CCME web site and/or pointers in their own web sites in order to ensure a single location for mercury CWSs reporting should errors/ miscalculations have to be corrected at some time. In addition to the consolidated public reporting on mercury CWSs, jurisdictions must provide a contact for additional information in the advent that the public wishes to access achievement information.

Such data will be supplied in a manner consistent with the normal data-reporting/ compliance reporting procedures of the jurisdiction in question. April 30, 2001 Canada-wide Standard for Mercury-Containing Lamps 8

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Orders in Council
Citation	O.C. 525/2001
Type	order_in_council
Volume / chapter	arc oic 0525 2001
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	01b72102994f66c7f33bc0aaea9d1daa5ec65e3a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).