British Columbia Order in Council — Order under Ministry of Environment Authorizing the Minister to sign Canada-wide standard agreements for particulate matter and ozone, benzene and mercury (O.C. 768/2000)

O.C. 768/2000

British Columbia — Orders in Council

ister of Environment, Lands and Parks Presiding Member of the Executive Council PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ORDER OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL Order in Council No. 768 , Approved and Ordered JUN -1 2000 • 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. (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.13.C. 1996,

Chapter 299, s.6 Other (specify ): "7$ 3/0 // 3

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) and OZONE Accepted November 29, 1999 For Endorsement in May 2009 November 29, 1999 1 of 11

CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) and OZONE These Canada-Wide Standards (CWSs) for particulate matter (PM) and ozone 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. RATIONALE Significant adverse effects have been demonstrated for the air pollutants PM and ozone on human health and the environment.

DEFINITIONS PM/0 refers to airborne particles that are 10 microns or less in diameter PM25 refers to airborne particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter PM 10.15 refers to airborne particles in the size range 2.5 to 10 microns in diameter, known as the coarse fraction of PM 10 Ozone refers to an oxygen compound (0 3) occurring in the form of a gas in the atmosphere at ground-level CONTEXT The long-term air quality management goal for PM and ozone is to minimize the risks of these pollutants to human health and the environment.

However, recent scientific evidence indicates that there is no apparent lower threshold for the effects of these two pollutants on human health. These CWSs for PM and ozone are an important step towards the long-term goal of minimizing the risks they impose to human health and the environment. They represent a balance between the desire to achieve the best health and environmental protection possible in the relative near- term and the feasibility and costs of reducing the pollutant emissions that contribute to elevated levels of PM and ozone in ambient air.

As such, while they will significantly reduce the effect of PM and ozone on human health and the environment, they may not be fully protective and may need to be re-visited at some future date. There are also additional benefits to reducing and maintaining ambient levels below the CWSs where possible. 4 November 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 2 of 11

Uncertainty and gaps exist and new data/information that becomes available will be acknowledged. However, Ministers are confident that taking action now to reduce PM and ozone levels will improve ambient air quality and result in benefits to the environment and to human health. Jurisdictions will have considerable flexibility in the detailed design of implementation plans and sectoral emission reduction strategies over the next few years, and an opportunity to reduce information gaps and uncertainties.

In jurisdictions highly impacted by transboundary air pollution from the United States, achieving the CWSs will be strongly dependent on reductions of this transboundary contribution. Also, high background levels of PM and ozone that may occur through natural events (such as forest fires, natural formation and stratospheric intrusion) will need to be considered in assessing achievement of the CWSs. The CWS for PM established here is for the fraction of PM recognized as having the greatest effect on human health, the fine fraction or PM 2.5.

The PM2.5 CWS has been established for the interim period prior to the planned review of the standard to be completed by 2005, which will incorporate advancements in scientific, technical and economic information and analysis. The PM2.5 CWS will ensure that PM management efforts are focused on the sources of PM and PM precursor emissions that provide the greatest health benefit. It is acknowledged that health effects are also associated with the coarser fraction of PM, or PM 10.2.5, and that actions to reduce the concentrations of these coarser fractions in the atmosphere are needed.

Reductions in ambient PM10 levels will occur as ancillary benefits from reducing PM2.5. In addition, some jurisdictions currently have ambient air quality objectives, guidelines or standards related to the coarser fraction of PM. These should continue to be used to design air quality management programs for PM10. CWSs related to the coarser fraction may be a useful addition at a later date. There are other aspects that should be considered in any future update of these PM and ozone CWSs.

Forms of the PM and ozone CWSs other than the relatively short term exposure forms established here, such as seasonal or annual average targets, may also be useful additions at a later date. Since the current CWSs are related primarily to protection of human health, their adequacy for the protection of vegetation, visibility impairment, material damage or other adverse effects may need to be assessed. November 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 3 of 11

PART 1: NUMERICAL TARGETS and TIMEFRAMES The CWS and related provisions for PM are: A CWS for PM 2 5 of 301.1g/m3, 24-hour averaging time, by year 2010 Achievement to be based on the 98 th percentile ambient measurement annually, averaged over 3 consecutive years The CWS and related provisions for ozone are: A CWS of 65 ppb, 8-hour averaging time, by 2015 Achievement to be based on the 4 th highest measurement annually, averaged over 3 consecutive years Specific provisions related to transboundary flow of ozone are contained in

Section B.3.5, Accounting for Transboundary Flow, of Annex B.

PART 2: IMPLEMENTATION Jurisdictions will undertake the following implementation actions: Development and implementation of jurisdictional implementation plans to achieve the CWSs. Implementation of continuous improvement, pollution prevention, and keeping-clean-areas-clean programs in areas with ambient concentrations below the CWS levels, in accordance with the guidance provided in Annex A.

In areas where jurisdictional implementation plans need to be augmented by reductions in transboundary flow of pollution from the United States or from other countries to achieve the CWSs, the federal government, with support from the provinces and territories, will aggressively pursue further reductions in the transboundary flow into Canada of PM and ozone and their precursor pollutants. November 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 4 of 11

Establishment and maintenance of the PM and ozone monitoring networks needed to characterise the PM and ozone air quality problems across Canada, design management programs, and track progress. REVIEW The CWSs will be reviewed as follows: (

a) by the end of year 2005, complete additional scientific, technical and economic analysis to reduce information gaps and uncertainties and establish, revise or supplement the PM and ozone CWSs for year 2015 as appropriate (

b) by the end of year 2010, assess the need, and if appropriate, revise the CWSs for PM and ozone for target years beyond 2015. 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 (

b) to Ministers and the public, with comprehensive reports at five year intervals beginning in year 2006 and reports on achievement and maintenance of the CWSs annually beginning in 2011, in accordance with guidance provided in Annex B ADMINISTRATION Jurisdictions will review and renew

Part 2 and Annexes A and B 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 on [date of signing]. November 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 5 of 11

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 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 6 of 11 November 29, 1999

ANNEX A GUIDANCE FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND KEEPING-CLEAN-AREAS-CLEAN PROGRAMS FOR PM AND OZONE In most areas of Canada, ambient levels are lower than the CWSs for PM and ozone established here. Ministers have agreed to include in the CWSs a provision on environmental management in areas where ambient air quality is "better" than the levels set out in the standards. (

a) Continuous Improvement There are numerous locations across Canada that have ambient levels of PM and/or ozone below the CWS levels but still above the levels associated with observable health effects. There is a need to ensure that the public recognizes that the CWS levels are only a first step to subsequent reductions towards the lowest observable effects levels. It would be wrong to convey the impression that no action is required in these areas or that it would be acceptable to allow pollutant levels to rise to the CWS levels. Jurisdictions should take remedial and preventative actions to reduce emissions from anthropogenic sources in these areas to the extent practicable. (

b) Keeping Clean Areas Clean Jurisdictions recognize that polluting "up to a limit" is not acceptable and that the best strategy to avoid future problems is keeping clean areas clean.

Jurisdictions should work with their stakeholders and the public to establish programs that apply pollution prevention and best management practices, by, for example: • developing and implementing strategies consistent with the CCME commitment to pollution prevention • ensuring that new facilities and activities incorporate the best available economically feasible technologies to reduce PM and ozone levels • requiring that upgrades carried out in the course of normal capital stock turnover incorporate the best available economically feasible technologies to reduce PM and ozone levels • reviewing new activities that could contribute to an increase in PM and ozone levels with stakeholders and the public in terms of their social, economic and environmental merits NovEmber 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 7 of 11

ANNEX B REPORTING PROTOCOL FOR CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS FOR PARTICULATE AND OZONE B.1 Introduction It is intended under the Harmonization Accord and its Standards Sub-Agreement that all jurisdictions will report on a regular basis to their publics and to Ministers of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on their progress towards achieving the CVVSs for particulate matter (PM) and ozone. This reporting protocol is intended to provide guidance for reporting on all provisions of the CWSs for PM and ozone.

Its provisions are designed to help ensure consistency and comparability in the reporting by jurisdictions, and better understanding by the public on how jurisdictions plan to track and report on progress. B.2 Frequency, Timing and Scope of Reporting There will be two types of reporting by jurisdictions: 1) Annual Reporting on Achievement of the CWSs These reports will be completed by each jurisdiction in a standardized "report card" format, the format to be developed and agreed to by all jurisdictions, and provided to Ministers and the public by September 30 of each year, beginning in 2011.

These annual reports will be limited in scope containing mainly

summary information on levels and trends in ambient PM and ozone concentrations in communities within each jurisdiction, identifying communities where ambient levels are exceeding or approaching the CWS levels. They may also note the reason for any significant change in ambient levels or trends from previous years. 2) Five-Year Reports These reports will be completed for the year 2005 and for every fifth year thereafter and provided to Ministers and the public by September 30 of the following year.

The report for 2005 will be an interim report on progress towards meeting the CWSs, and subsequent reports will focus on achievement of the CWSs applicable at that time. Five-year reports will be comprehensive, assessing progress on all provisions of the CWSs. the format and general content will be determined and agreed to by all jurisdictions 2 years in advance of the reporting year. They will include, assessment of ambient levels and trends in communities within each jurisdiction, identifying November 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 8 of 11

communities where ambient levels are exceeding or approaching the CWS levels, information on PM and ozone precursor emissions and trends, comprehensive descriptions of smog management efforts, progress with implementation of measures in implementation plans, actions to ensure continuous improvement in areas with ambient levels below the CWS levels but within the effects range, actions to ensure that clean areas are kept clean, actions on co-operation in monitoring and science, and any other provision of the CWSs.

The federal government will include in its reports an assessment of trends in U.S. emissions and ambient levels in border regions affecting ambient PM and ozone levels in Canada, and of the effectiveness of U.S. control programs in reducing those emissions and of Canadian efforts to secure such reductions. The CCME will co-ordinate the collation of the information from the various jurisdictional reports in (1) and (2) above into a national overview report for the public, CCME Ministers and international audiences.

In addition to the reporting in (1) and (2) above, individual jurisdictions may report to their publics on a more frequent basis. The scope and timing of any such reporting would be determined by the jurisdiction. B.3 Reporting on Achievement of the CWSs B.3.1 Guidance Document on Achievement Determination Jurisdictions will co-operate in the preparation and periodic update as required, of a Guidance Document on Achievement Determination for the PM and ozone CWSs.

This document will elaborate on information, methodologies, criteria and procedures related to each of the basic elements of achievement reporting identified below. B.3.2 Communities for CWS Achievement Determination Jurisdictions will use a community-oriented approach for reporting on achievement of the PM and ozone CWSs. As a basic requirement, jurisdictions will report on CWS achievement for population centres over 100,000.

As well, jurisdictions may also report on CWS achievement for communities with population less than 100,000 based on considerations such as regional population density, proximity to sources, local air quality, etc. To provide consistency and comparability in reporting across jurisdictions, the geographic units for grouping of municipalities (Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)/Census Agglomerations (CAs)/Census Subdivisions) established by Statistics Canada will be used as guidance for community identification.

Larger CMAs may be subdivided into smaller sub-areas to better capture geographic variation within the CMA. [Refer to the Guidance Document for a listing of CMAs and CAs in Canada and suggested criteria for subdividing larger CMAsi November 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 9 of 11

B.3.3 Monitoring Sites for Determining Achievement CWS achievement will be based on community-oriented monitoring sites i.e. sites located where people live, work and play rather than at the expected maximum impact point for specific emission sources.

Rural (or background) and source specific sites will not be included for CWS achievement determination. [See the Guidance Document for guidance on selection of community-oriented monitoring sites ] B.3.4 Calculation Methodologies for Determining Achievement It is important that common statistical parameters be used by all jurisdictions in reporting on CWS achievement so that there will be consistency and comparability in assessing progress in achieving the CWSs. These parameters stem initially from the basic form and achievement statistics specified for the CWSs.

That is: For PM25: 24-hour averaging time, achievement to be based on 98 th percentile annual value, averaged over three consecutive years For Ozone: 8-hour averaging time, achievement to be based on 4 th highest annual measurement, averc, _clover three consecutive years For PM CWS achievement determination, measurements from each multiple continuous (or daily) population-oriented monitoring station within a CMA/CA or CMA reporting sub-area will be spatially averaged for each year (up to three) for which measurements are available.

For ozone CWS achievement determination, the monitoring station with the highest average ozone concentration within a CMA/CA or CMA reporting sub-area will be used. [See the Guidance Document for methodology for determination of 98 th percentile annual levels for PM 2 5 and 4th highest annual levels for ozone from monitors that measure at various frequencies or for which there are less than 365 measurements per year, and methodologies for determining spatial averages.] 8.3.5 Accounting for Transboundary Pollution Communities for which jurisdictions demonstrate (

i) that continued exceedance of the CWS levels is primarily due to transboundary flow of PM and ozone or their precursor pollutants from the U.S. or from another province/territory, and (ii) that "best efforts" have been made to reduce contributions to the excess levels from pollution sources within the jurisdiction, will be identified in reporting as "transboundary influenced November 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 10 of 11

communities" that are unable to reach attainment of the CWSs until further reduction in transboundary air pollution flow occurs.

Demonstration of transboundary flow influence will be a shared responsibility of the federal government and the affected province/territory, and demonstration of best efforts will include measures in both provincial/territorial and federal implementation plans. [See the Guidance Document for methodologies for demonstrating the influence of transboundary and criteria on what would constitute "best efforts".] For the province of Ontario, a 45% reduction in NOx and VOC emissions from 1990 levels by 2015 will be considered the province's appropriate level of effort towards achieving the ozone CWS.

Any remaining ambient ozone levels above the CWS in Ontario will be considered attributable to the transboundary flow from the U.S. of ozone and its precursor pollutants. B.3.6 Accounting for Background and Natural Events Communities for which jurisdictions demonstrate (

i) that continued exceedance of the CWS levels is primarily due to naturally occurring local or regional PM and/or ozone and (ii) that "best efforts" have been made to reduce contributions to the excess levels from pollution sources within the jurisdiction, will be identified in reporting as "communities influenced by background or natural events".

Demonstration of background or natural influence is the responsibility of the affected jurisdiction, and demonstration of best efforts will include measures in both provincial/territorial and federal implementation plans. [See the Guidance Document for methodologies for demonstrating background or natural influence and criteria on what would constitute "best efforts".] 8.3.7 Maintenance and Provision of Monitoring Information It is important tc have up-to-date PM and ozone monitoring data. Jurisdictions will maintain their own data on ambient measurements of PM 25, PM10 and ozone and make it publicly accessible.

Accessibility may be accomplished by posting on Internet Sites, which would be linked to the CCME Website. Jurisdictions will also co-operate in establishing and maintaining a Monitoring Protocol, which will ensure the coordination of monitoring data. This will allow for better co-ordination of monitoring program design and operation, ambient air quality trends analyses regional source-receptor assessments, transboundary air quality analyses and implementation plan design. November 29, 1999 Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone 11 of 11

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CANADA-WIDE STANDARD for BENZENE PHASE 1 Accepted November 29, 1999 For Endorsement in May 2000 November 29, 1999 1 of 7

CANADA-WIDE STANDARD for BENZENE This Canada-Wide Standard (CWS) for benzene is 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. RATIONALE In selecting benzene as a Canada-wide environmental priority for development of a CWS, Ministers recognized that, on the basis of available data, benzene is classified as carcinogenic to humans.

That is, benzene is a non-threshold toxicant - a substance for which there is considered to be some probability of harm for critical effects at any level of exposure. The development of this CWS for benzene will reduce Canadians' exposure to this known human carcinogen. CONTEXT This CWS represents a balance between the desire to achieve the best health and environmental protection possible and the feasibility and costs of reducing the emissions that contribute to elevated levels of benzene in ambient air.

The primary long-term air quality management goal for non-threshold toxicants like benzene is to reduce exposure to the extent possible and practicable, thereby reducing the risk of the adverse effects of this pollutant on human health. This approach is also consistent with the Canada-wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization's precautionary principle, which states "where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation".

In the short term, the implementation of the Phase 1 Canada-wide control strategy for benzene will reduce the exposure of Canadians to ambient levels of this pollutant. The phased approach being proposed by this CWS is indicative of the recognition that there are definite benefits, in terms of exposure reduction, to be gained from a Canada-wide control strategy for benzene. Ministers recognize that most of the Phase 1 emission reduction initiatives are currently underway, but by collating them under the CWS process they will be given more authority.

Due to the ongoing nature of the initiatives of Phase 1, emission reductions will continue beyond the timeframe proposed under NUMERICAL TARGETS and TIMEFRAMES. In addition, emission reduction actions will improve air quality where ambient levels are elevated, and prevent or minimise deterioration of air quality in areas that currently have good air quality. Phase 2 of this CWS will develop the required future direction for setting ambient levels or further emission reduction targets as the science gaps are addressed. November 29, 1999 Benzene 2 of 7

The CWS levels and target dates have been selected regardless of the gaps and uncertainties in some of the information used to support them. The information available is sufficient to conclude that achieving the CWS within the selected target dates is technically and economically feasible. In this regard, jurisdictions will have considerable flexibility in the detailed design of jurisdictional implementation plans and sectors; :mission reduction strategies as well as an opportunity to reduce information gaps and uncertainties.

Initial actions towards achieving Phase 1 of the CWS are being identified at this time, to show that improvements in air quality are being achieved at the earliest opportunity.

PART I: NUMERICAL TARGETS and TIMEFRAMES Ministers acknowledge that the CWS established here is related to protection of human health. They also acknowledge that other forms such as seasonal or annual average targets may be good surrogates for health effects and useful additions at a later date. The CWS for benzene will include: For Phase 1: A national target of 30% reduction in total benzene emissions (from 1995 emission inventory levels) to be achieved by the end of year 2000. For Phase 2: The form and target of this phase will be developed through consultation with stakeholders. Phase 2 of this CWS will be presented to ministers in the spring of 2001.

PART 2: IMPLEMENTATION Sector-specific actions that will be taken towards the 30% reduction in total benzene emissions are summarized in the Companion Document that follows. Jurisdictional implementation plans will be developed and implemented to achieve this CWS. November 29, 1999 Benzene 3 of 7

Ministers recognize that demonstrating achievement of Phase 1 of the CWS will take time, and, as an interim measure, will ensure reporting on ambient air concentrations of benzene as an indicator of air quality with respect to benzene. This reporting will be accomplished using data from existing monitoring sites; these data are to be agreed to by all jurisdictions. Jurisdictions may also report any additional monitoring information as appropriate. The first report will be made public by September 30th, 2001.

The requirement for an ongoing Canada-wide monitoring program will be assessed and developed during Phase 2 of this CWS. REVIEW The plan for review of the complete benzene CWS will be presented as part of the Phase 2 CWS package. REPORTING on PROGRESS Progress towards meeting the above provisions will be reported as follows: (

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

b) to Ministers and the public, with comprehensive reports at five-year intervals beginning in year 2006 and reports on achievement and maintenance of the CWS annually beginning in 2001, in accordance with guidance provided in the following Annex. ADMINISTRATION Jurisdictions will review and renew

Part 2 and Annex 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 on [date of signing]. November 29, 1999 Benzene 4 of 7

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 Irite 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 November 29, 1999 Benzene 5 of 7

ANNEX REPORTING PROTOCOL FOR CANADA-WIDE STANDARD FOR BENZENE B.1 Introduction It is intended under the Harmonization Accord and its Standards Sub-Agreement that all jurisdictions will report on a regular basis to their publics and to Ministers of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on their progress towards achieving the CWS for benzene. This reporting protocol is intended to provide guidance for reporting on all provisions of the CWS for benzene.

Its provisions are designed to help ensure consistency and comparability in the reporting by jurisdictions, and better understanding by the public on how jurisdictions plan to track and report on progress. B.2 Frequency, Timing and Scope of Reporting There will be two types of reporting by jurisdictions: 1) Annual Reporting on Achievement of the CWS These reports will be completed by each jurisdiction in a standardized "report card " format, the format to be developed and agreed to by all jurisdictions, and provided to Ministers and the public by 30 September of each year, beginning in 2001.

These annual reports will be limited in scope containing mainly

summary information on emission levels and trends, and, where available, ambient benzene concentrations using data agreed to by all jurisdictions. The annual reports may also note the reason for any significant change in emission or ambient levels or trends from previous years. 2) Five-Year Reports These reports will be completed for the year 2005 and for every fifth year thereafter and provided to Ministers and the public by 30 September of the following year.

The report for 2005 will be an interim report on progress towards meeting the CWS, and subsequent reports will focus on achievement of the CWS applicable at that time. Five-year reports will be comprehensive, assessing progress on all provisions of the CWS. The format and general consent will be determined and agreed to by all jurisdictions two years in advance of the reporting year. November 29, 1999 Benzene 6 of 7

The CCME will co-ordinate the collation of the information from the various jurisdictional reports in (1) and (2) above into a national overview report for the public, CCME Ministers and international audiences by December 31 of each reporting year. In addition to the reporting in (1) and (2) above, individual jurisdiction may report to their publics on a more frequent basis. The scope and timing of any such reporting would be determined by the jurisdiction. November 29, 1999 Benzene 7 of 7

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for MERCURY Accepted November 29, 1999 For Endorsement in May 2000 November 29, 1999 1 of 13

CANADA-WIDE STANDARDS for MERCURY

PREAMBLE The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment determined that mercury levels in fish and wildlife across Canada warrant additional efforts to reduce atmospheric 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. A common thread through all mercury impacts is that deposition to waterbodies 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 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) of mercury. November 29, 1999 Mercury 2 of 13

The Canada-wide Standards development process reviewed the nature of the mercury issue in Canada, and concluded that two distinctive source categories were amenable to further actions, namely life-cycle management of products containing mercury to minimize releases, and reduction or minimization actions for major point source emissions of incidental mercury.

Based upon available inventory information, it is estimated that of the year 2000 national mercury emissions (12 T/yr) three sectors will contribute the bulk of these emissions, namely the base metal smelting sector (2.8 T/yr), waste incineration sector (1.2 T/yr) and coal-fired electricity generation sector (1.5 T/yr). Standards have been developed for two of these three sectors that reflect room for improvement that is significant and cost-effective. Standards have been provided also that will be used to guide the development of new facilities should they be constructed.

Efforts to develop a standard for the electricity generation sector have been complicated and progress has been delayed such that a workplan to develop standards for this sector will not be completed until early in 2000. Life-cycle standards for select mercury- containing products will also be completed early in 2000. November 29, 1999 Mercury 3 of 13

PART 1: Base metal smelting Rationale for standard The base metal smelting sector has historically been responsible for much of the mercury emitted in Canada. However the voluntary application of a number of process changes and stack treatments/scrubbers have combined to reduce mercury emissions from this sector by more than 90% since 1988. Due to reductions from this sector, Canada has complied with its obligations under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Heavy Metals Protocol. Despite this substantial progress additional reductions are possible.

As of 2000, the mercury emissions from base metal smelting remain the single largest emission sector in Canada at 2.8 T/yr. Under the federal Strategic Options Process (SOP), industry and government recommended development by CCME of "environmental source performance guidelines" that reflect application of best available techniques. By following this approach, Canada's domestic program will be consistent with international objectives for this industry.

Nature and application: Based upon the performance of various technologies and practices as demonstrated at existing facilities in Canada, and in consideration of the recommendations made in the federal SOP for this sector, a two-part standard is recommended. This standard reflects the application of "best available techniques" on a facility-specific basis, and a uniform reporting mechanism based upon environmental source performance (atmospheric emission) guidelines.

Standards are suggested for both existing facilities, to reflect actions taken to reduce emissions of mercury, and for new facilities, to ensure that smelters utilize the best available techniques to avoid or reduce metals emissions generally and mercury emissions specifically. Numeric Targets: For existing facilities: application by all primary zinc, lead and copper smelters of best available pollution prevention and control techniques economically achievable to achieve an environmental source performance (atmospheric emission) guideline of 2 g Hg/tonne total production of finished metals.

For new and expanding facilities: application of best available pollution prevention and control techniques to minimize mercury emissions throughout the life-cycle of the minerals in question to achieve an environmental source performance (atmospheric emission) guideline of 0.2 g Hg/tonne production of finished zinc, nickel and lead, and 1 g Hg/tonne of finished copper, and consideration of a mercury offset' program to ensure no "net" emission increases occur. A new facility will recover and retire an amount of mercury equivalent to their annual emissions. November 29, 1999 Mercury 4 of 13

Timeframe for achieving the targets: Existing facilities will be expected to make a determined effort2 to meet this standard by 2008, coincident with implementation of the federal Strategic Options Report, while any new facility will be required to design for and achieve compliance immediately upon full scale operation. Jurisdictions will evaluate changes and upgrades to existing facilities to ensure they constitute determined efforts.

Waste Incineration Rationale for standard Waste incineration3 has historically been responsible for a significant portion of the mercury emitted in Canada, however reductions in emissions have been apparent. 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 sector.

At the same time, action has been taken by many product manufacturers to reduce the mercury content of consumer goods which could end their life cycle in domestic solid waste (e.g., alkaline batteries) and thus have reduced the mercury available in the waste stream. Mercury from this sector is estimated to be 446 kg/year. Many medical waste incinerators 5 have closed for economic or environmental reasons, but a range of medium- to small-sized facilities remain which alone are small sources, but as a sector are considerable, emitting an estimated 250 kg/yr.

Two sectors in which emission reductions are not apparent, hazardous waste 6 (550 kg/yr) and sewage sludge (285 kg/yr) incineration, can achieve reductions either through source control or gas-controls.

Control of mercury emissions has been recognized in a variety of jurisdictions, including some Canadian Provinces, with emission standards being developed by the Eastern Canadian Premiers and New England Governors (ECP-NEG), or the United Nations Economic '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 For the purpose of the Mercury CWS, an incinerator shall be considered to be 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. 4 For the purpose of the Mercury CWS, municipal solid waste shall be taken to include 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.

For the purpose of the Mercury CWS, medical waste is 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. hazardous waste incinerators do not include facilities that use waste derived fuel. November 29, 1999 Mercury 5 of 13

Commission for Europe (UNECE) providing a basis for evaluating possible Canada-wide Standards. Actions to reduce national emissions below the anticipated 2000 rate of 1.5 T/yr 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 removing mercury, or the mercury containing waste be diverted from incinerators.

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. Attainment of the numeric standards adopted by the ECP-NEG for application to large municipal, and sludge incinerators, and by the UNECE for hazardous waste incineration is suggested as cost-effective means of reducing emissions from this sector.

A review of the ECP- NEG limit for medical incinerators concluded that larger medical incinerators actually combust a considerable amount of municipal waste, and as such it is recommended they comply with the same limit as the municipal sector. 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 be subject to annual stack testing to verify compliance with the limit and smaller (medical, municipal) facilities will have the option of reporting on a successful mercury diversion plan or of conducting a one-time stack test, to illustrate progress towards the standard.

Numeric targets: for new or expanding facilities of any size, application of best available pollution prevention and control techniques, such as a mercury waste diversion program, to achieve a maximum concentration' in the exhaust gases from the facility as follows: Municipal waste incineration"•9 20 lig/Rrn3 Medical waste incineration 20 [t.g/Rrn3 Hazardous waste incineration 50 Rg/Rrn3 Sewage sludge incineration 70 p.g/Rm3 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" > 120 Tonnes/year 9 20 jig/Rrn3 < 120 Tonnes/year l° 20 pg/Rm3 November 29, 1999 Mercury 6 of 13

Medical waste incineration > 120 Tonnes/year 9 < 120 Tonnes/year l° Hazardous waste incineration Sewage sludge incineration 20 ug/Rm3 40 pg/Rin3 50 ug/Rm3 70 ug/Rm3 Stack concentrations of mercury will be corrected to 11% oxygen content for reporting purposes. 8Conical waste combusters are under separate consideration since the proposed standard for municipal waste incinerators cannot be achieved with these burners. Newfoundland will review the use of conical waste combusters and consider a phase-out strategy that will reduce mercury emissions.

Such a strategy would be developed in conjunction with the Canada-wide Standard for dioxins and furans. 9 Larger facilities must achieve this stack concentration as confirmed by annual testing. I° Smaller facilities must make determined efforts2 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.

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 or an equivalent emission rate as confirmed by an audit of a waste diversion program. Existing facilities will endeavour to meet the standards on the following schedule: Municipal waste incineration 2006 Medical waste incineration 2006 Hazardous waste incineration 2003 Sewage sludge incineration 2005

PART 2: REPORTING ON PROGRESS: Ministers will receive reports by jurisdictions in 2004, 2007 and 2010, and will ensure that a single public report is prepared and posted on the CCME web site for public access. The 2010 report will include an evaluation of these standards and a recommendation whether changes s►'ould be considered. These reports will be accompanied by other information on additional outcomes, activities, research or issues which are relevant to the mercury CWSs and/or sector under consideration. Examples 0: such reporting include speciation measures relevant to design of stack control November 29, 1999 Mercury 7 of 13

measures, other environmental programs with implications for compliance with the standards, etc. Each jurisdiction will detail the means of ensuring compliance/achievement in a manner consistent with the typical or desired programs far the affected facility/sector, so as not to impose an unnecessary level of reporting duplication upon the jurisdictions. In those sectors where the CWS calls for determined efforts, jurisdictions will report on their evaluation of these efforts. During the years prior to the date for achievement/compliance of a standard, jurisdictions will provide information explaining the status of their implementation of each mercury CWS so that a consolidated

summary of jurisdictional progress can be prepared for the public. More details and a mock-up report are available in Annex I. ADMINISIKA11Q, 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 come into effect on [date of signing]. November 29, 1999 Mercury 8 of 13

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 November 29, 1999 Mercury 9 of 13

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 There will be reporting on a

schedule which is tied into assessing the performance of the governments in meeting the benchmarks and timelines relevant to the standards. A report issued in 2004 will include compliance by one incineration sector and progress in all others towards implementation, the report in 2007 compliance by all incineration sectors and progress for base metal smelting, and the third report in 2010 an overall evaluation of compliance for all standards and any recommendations for revisions.

Jurisdictions will submit spreadsheets which will contain all relevant information necessary for a single public report to 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. November 29, 1999 Mercury 10 of 13

Means of determining compliance/achievement of the CWS The Canada-wide Standards for mercury 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 mercury CWSs that are different than those used for locally determined or regulated parameters such as SO2, PM, ammonia, etc. An example is where the mercury 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. Mercury emissions must be corrected for the 0 2 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 mercury 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 mercury 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.

Data management and public reporting Facility-specific information will be supplied in a spreadsheet format to facilitate reporting. A consolidated data-report and achievement/compliance report will be made available to all jurisdictions and to the Ministers, along with the draft public report, prior to formal release of November 29, 1999 Mercury 11 of 13

the public report. The public report will be released upon approval by the Ministers of the Environment. Jurisdictions will provide a report in spreadsheet format prior to September 30 so that the consolidated spreadsheet can be prepared along with the public report (draft) for review and approval. A consolidated spreadsheet will be prepared and distributed to all jurisdictions within 30 days of receipt of the final jurisdictional spreadsheet.

Along with the consolidated spreadsheet 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 (draft format attached) 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 mercury CWSs repor!ing 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 facility-specific information in the advent that the public wishes to access compliance or achievement information. Such data will 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. November 29, 1999 Mercury 12 of 13

90 •o 106 Cakada Al NI IC ON /46 0 4141111rd 141014rne1Iti$11 Poramt of lad Mom Toottrtg slandard 011611810111 (11141 0 70 o eo 110 100 Example public report format only CWS-Hg for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators in Canada (This report covers those processing more than 120 Tonnes/yr only) Report overview: This is a consolidated report on the achievement of or compliance with Canada-Wide Standard for mercury emissions from the Municipal Solid Waste Incineration sector in Canada. Several facilities located in the Province of Quebec are not addressed in this report.

This report provides an progress indicator for the jurisdictional activities to implement the standards, an indictor for facility compliance and/or achievement with the standard, a consolidated graphic showing the net reductions in emissions from this sector against two baseline years, and a national

summary for the sector. Sector overview: The incineration of solid waste is utilized for two reasons in Canada - either to reduce volumes to minimize landfilling, or to achieve generate electricity (energy from waste). During the development of the Canada-wide Standard for this sector, a total of 13 major facilities and more than 100 minor facilities were evaluated. A baseline year of 2000 has been selected. From the original total of 13 major facilities located in 7 jurisdictions, all facilities remain in operation. PercoM rockoiion from 1900 baseline (kg/m) 0 20 40 00 00 100 November 29, 1999 13 of 13 Mercury

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Orders in Council
Citation	O.C. 768/2000
Type	order_in_council
Volume / chapter	arc oic 0768 2000
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5dcd272897fc4a391d32214b8ba3a5a6cf370fe1

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