Posts

Repeal of the Ontario Toxics Reduction Act, 2009

The Ontario government recently announced that it will repeal the Ontario Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 and revoke its associated regulations on December 31, 2021.

The purpose of the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 is to prevent pollution by reducing the use and creation of toxic substances and inform Ontarians about those substances. Under the statute, industry is required to develop toxic reduction plans, and report publicly each year. Implementation of plans is voluntary.

The decision to revoke the statute was reached by the government following consultation with stakeholders and in keeping with the government’s Ontario Open for Business Action Plan. During the consultation period, the government received a total of 431 comments from various stakeholders.

The reason given by the government for the planned repeal was that the Toxics Reduction Program has not achieved meaningful reductions. The government stated that results indicate an overall reduction of only 0.04% of substances used, created and released for all regulated facilities.

This graph illustrates the number of substances as reported to the Ontario Environment Ministry under the Toxics Reduction Regulations by facilities for 2013

In repealing the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 in 2021, the Ontario government believes that it will eliminate duplication and overlap with the federal government’s Chemicals Management Plan program under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999.

Regulated facilities in Ontario still have to maintain reporting under the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 and its associated regulations until December 31, 2021.

Existing facilities with current plans for substances that meet reporting thresholds are required to report annually on:

  • the amounts of those substances used, created, contained in product; and
  • the progress in reducing those substances.

Until the repeal, facilities can continue to voluntarily amend their plans. Summaries of amended plans must also be made available to the public.

Quebec to Track Contaminated Soil Movement in Real Time

The Quebec Government recently announcement that it will adopt the regulation that will include the implementation of a system in which the movement of contaminated soil will be tracked in real time. Under the tracking system, the site owner, project manager, regulator, carrier, and receiving site, and other stakeholders will be able to know where contaminated soil is being shipped from, where it’s going, its quantity and what routes will be used to transport it.

Contaminated soil will be tracked in real time, starting from its excavation, through a global positioning system. The system, Traces Québec, is already in place in Montreal as part of a pilot project launched last March.

Traces Quebec , an initiative of Réseau Environnement in partnership with WikiNet , offers the first integrated traceability solution for contaminated soils in Quebec. Performing on a web platform, the Traces Quebec traceability system allows contaminated soil owners to follow in real time the movement of their materials and to have an encrypted, confidential and archived trace of the displaced materials. In an era of transparency and eco-citizenship, Traces Québec allows contaminated soil owners to demonstrate beyond any doubt their exemplary management of these materials.

Combining the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence, Traces Quebec is an independent application that allows complete traceability of materials to their destination. Transactions are encrypted, unalterable and private, and compatible with smart phones and conventional GPS fleet systems.

With a system such as Traces Québec, all players in the field in Quebec will benefit from increased traceability and responsible management of transported excavated materials, particularly treatment, transfer stations and landfills, which will increase the volume materials shipped to their sites. Owners of these materials concerned with their good management, including municipalities, will also come out winners and can easily testify to their good management. Management in compliance with the laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment; this is the essential contribution of Traces Québec.

The Quebec government also intends to increase he number of inspections on receiving sites. Furthermore, fines will be increased for those taking part in illegal dumping — from $350 to $3 million depending on the gravity of the offence, the type of soil and if they are repeat offenders, among other criteria.

How the GPS tracking system works

Are New United States Regulations Coming for Accidental Releases into Air?

By Louis A. Ferreira, Willa B. Perlmutter, and Guy J. Thompson, Stoel Rives LLP

On February 4, 2019, a federal court ruled that the U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Board must issue regulations within one year that set forth reporting requirements for accidental releases of hazardous substances into the ambient air. This requirement has been part of the Board’s statutory mandate since its inception in 1990 pursuant to Section 112(r)(6)(C)(iii) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Nevertheless, the Board has never issued any such regulations.

Four non-profit groups and one individual filed a one-count complaint against the Board, seeking declaratory relief and an injunction to compel the Board to promulgate reporting requirements as required by the CAA. Plaintiffs claimed that the Board had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not issuing any regulations. Plaintiffs further asserted the lack of reporting requirements have impaired their respective abilities to collect information that would help prevent future releases and the harm caused from such releases.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the plaintiffs and ruled that the Board must issue regulations within one year. In reaching its decision, the Court rejected the Board’s defenses that the delay in promulgating regulations was reasonable given the Board’s limited resources, small staff size, and other required functions. “[I]f that is the case,” the Court said, “the solution to its resource constraints is not to ignore a congressional directive[,] [i]t is to return to Congress and ask for relief from the statutory requirement.” The case is Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. U.S. Chem. & Safety Hazard Investigation Bd., D.D.C., No. 17-cv-02608, February 4, 2019.

The Court’s decision appears to follow a similar one issued in August 2018 in which some of the same plaintiffs brought a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In that case, the plaintiffs petitioned the D.C. Court of Appeals for review of the EPA’s decision to delay for 20 months the effective date of a rule designed to promote accident safety and enhance the emergency response requirements for chemical releases. The Court rejected all of EPA’s defenses justifying the delay in a strongly-worded opinion that held the agency strictly to the letter of the CAA. That case is Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, 906 F.3d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

The same directness is evident in this recent decision.

Ultimately, the practical effect of the ruling is not clear. There are already laws in place that require companies to report accidental releases to state and federal authorities. It is possible the Board will promulgate regulations that align with its current practice of deferring reporting requirements to other agencies. If the Board took that approach, there likely would not be a noticeable difference in reporting requirements from the current practice.

On the other hand, the two recent decisions discussed above suggest that a trend may be forming in which the courts are pushing back when the government steps off its clear statutory path.


This article has been republished with the permission of the authors. The original post of this article can be found on the Stoel Rivers LLP website.

About the Authors

Lou Ferreira is a senior partner with more than 27 years of complex trial experience.  His practice focuses on commercial litigation, insurance coverage and environmental, safety & health issues.  A seasoned litigator, Lou has significant experience in high-stakes litigation including successfully defending a class action filed against a utility by residents of a town in Washington asserting that the utility was liable for flooding as a result of the operations of its upstream dams.  Lou  successfully defended a port in Washington from a $20 million lawsuit brought by developers alleging breach of contract to develop a large mixed-use waterfront project on the Columbia River. 

Willa Perlmutter has more than 30 years of experience as a litigator, focusing for the last 20 on defending mine operators across all sectors of the industry in administrative enforcement proceedings brought by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for alleged violations of the Mine Act.  In addition, she regularly counsels clients on a broad range of issues that affect their mining operations, from personnel policies and actions to compliance with a broad range of federal statutes. Willa regularly defends companies and individuals facing investigations and formal legal proceedings for alleged safety and health violations under both the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, whether those arise out of a catastrophic event, such as an accident, or in the course of a regular inspection by MSHA or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). She has successfully defended a number of mining companies in whistleblower cases brought under the Mine Act.

Guy Thompson is a litigator and advisor on a wide-range of insurance matters. His practice focuses on insurance coverage litigation, including natural resources/environmental insurance coverage, and a wide variety of risk management issues. Guy helps policyholders obtain the recovery they deserve from their insurers and has helped recover millions of dollars from insurance companies for his clients. Guy is skilled at getting insurance carriers to cooperate in paying claims and often secures settlements with insurers without the need for litigation. Recently, he helped recover over $1.65 million from multiple insurance carriers for a Portland company that was required to perform environmental cleanup by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

U.S.: New Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals Rule: Significant Changes Coming for Health Care Facilities, Particularly Long-Term Care Facilities

by Brooke F. Dickerson and Jennifer L. Hilliard,
Arnall Golden Gregory (AGG)

Health care facilities that provide a host of health care-related services or distribute, sell, or dispense pharmaceuticals will need to learn a whole new set of regulations thanks to a finalized new rule promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The new rule revises management standards for hazardous waste pharmaceuticals (HWPs) for health care facilities, including nursing, skilled nursing, and inpatient hospice facilities, more than three years following the close of comments for the EPA’s initial proposed rule. The revised regulations will take effect six months following publication in the Federal Register.

The Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the generation, management, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Before the new rule was promulgated, certain health care facilities, such as hospitals and reverse distributors were subject to the same hazardous waste requirements under the RCRA as most industries. The management of HWPs at long-term care facilities, however, was excluded from the RCRA and treated the same as HWPs at residential households. EPA makes clear in this new rule that because nursing, skilled nursing, and inpatient hospice facilities are more akin to hospitals, their management of any hazardous waste, including HWPs, will also be subject to RCRA requirements.

The final rule revises some of the regulations and management standards for HWPs under the RCRA and sets them apart in a separate section of the RCRA regulations, to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 266, Subpart P (“Subpart P”), that are applicable specifically to health care facilities and reverse distributors. According to the EPA, this is necessary because hazardous waste generation and management practices at health care facilities differ significantly from those encountered in industry generally. As a result, regulating HWPs under the standard provisions of RCRA Subtitle C has been unnecessarily difficult. The EPA maintains that the new management standards are more streamlined and tailored specifically for healthcare HWPs and thus will promote proper management of HWPs by healthcare workers and pharmacy employees.

The final rule does not increase the universe of pharmaceuticals that are considered hazardous waste. However, it does accomplish four significant and practical changes in the management of pharmaceuticals: (1) HWPs that are to be sent off-site for reverse distribution will be regulated as hazardous wastes under the RCRA while still at the health care facility, (2) HWPs are banned from being disposed of down a drain or in a toilet, thereby reducing the amount of pharmaceutical ingredients that contaminate drinking water and endanger the environment, (3) it is easier to make a HWP container legally “empty,” and (4) nicotine replacement therapies are no longer considered potential hazardous wastes. Some of the components of the final rule will relieve the existing burdens on generators of HWPs, while other components may make the management of HWPs more onerous, at least initially.

Applicability to Long-Term Care Facilities

As noted above, the final rule applies to health care facilities. The definition of “health care facility” specifically includes long-term care facilities. A “long-term care facility,” in turn, is defined as:

[A] licensed entity that provides assistance with activities of daily living, including managing and administering pharmaceuticals to one or more individuals at the facility. This definition includes, but is not limited to, hospice facilities, nursing facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and the nursing and skilled nursing care portions of continuing care retirement communities. Not included within the scope of this definition are group homes, independent living communities, assisted living facilities and the independent and assisted living portions of continuing care retirement communities. (emphasis added).

The exclusion of assisted living from the definition of long-term care facility in the rule avoids many of the practical issues with control over medications taken directly by patients and use of multiple pharmacies that flow from the functional differences between nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The distinction constitutes a welcome change from the 2015 proposed rule, which sought to include such facilities in the definition of long-term care facility. The EPA stated unequivocally that HWPs that are in (a) the custody of the long-term care facility on behalf of the resident, or (b) an in-house pharmacy maintained by such facility (if any), must be managed under Subpart P. 

Definitions and Analysis

The analysis necessary to determine whether a given substance is considered a HWP involves three questions: 

Question 1 – Is it a Pharmaceutical? Under the final rule, a pharmaceutical includes, but is not limited to, the following:

  • Dietary supplements, as defined by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act;
  • Prescription drug, as defined by 21 C.F.R. § 203.3(y);
  • Over-the-counter drugs;
  • Homeopathic drugs;
  • Compounded drugs;
  • Investigational new drugs;
  • Pharmaceuticals remaining in non-empty containers;
  • Personal protective equipment contaminated with pharmaceuticals; and
  • Clean-up material from spills of pharmaceuticals.

The definition also includes any electronic nicotine delivery system and liquid nicotine packaged for retail sale. Excluded from the definition are sharps and dental amalgam.

Question 2 – Is it a Solid Waste? A solid waste is any discarded material that is not otherwise excluded under the regulations that implement RCRA. What constitutes a RCRA solid waste, however, is not limited to wastes that are physically solid. Many solid wastes are liquid, semi-solid, or gaseous material. A material is considered “discarded” once the facility has decided to discard it, and must be managed appropriately at that point in time. A material that is legitimately going to be used, reused or reclaimed is not discarded and is not a solid waste. Note, however, that under the final rule, EPA has pre-determined that a health care facility’s decision to reverse distribute a pharmaceutical constitutes a decision to discard the pharmaceutical.

Question 3 – Is it a HWP? Solid wastes that are pharmaceuticals are only considered hazardous waste under RCRA if they are either listed as hazardous wastes or exhibit one of the characteristics of hazardous waste. There are four lists–F , K , P and U –based on either manufacturing and industrial processes, or chemical designations. The F and K lists are based on manufacturing and industrial processes, none of which apply to pharmaceuticals for humans. The P and U lists are based on chemical products. The EPA notes that there are approximately 30 “Commercial Chemical Products” on the P and U lists that have uses in multiple pharmaceuticals. A Commercial Chemical Product is only a waste if (i) it has not been used or used as intended, and (ii) consists of the commercially pure grade of the chemical, any technical grades of the chemical that are produced or marketed or the chemical is the sole active ingredient in the formulation. If these criteria are not met, then the pharmaceutical is not a HWP, even if included in the P or U list.

As noted above, even if a pharmaceutical waste is not listed on any of the lists, it may also qualify as a hazardous waste if it exhibits one of the four characteristics of hazardous waste:

  • Ignitability (something flammable) – for example, solutions containing more than 24% alcohol,
  • Corrosivity (something that can rust or decompose) – for example, certain compounding chemicals,
  • Reactivity (something explosive), and
  • Toxicity (something poisonous).

The answer to all three of the foregoing questions must be yes for the material to qualify as a HWP, though the final rule does contain certain exceptions that may apply to exclude a pharmaceutical from being considered a HWP for purposes of RCRA Subpart P. A long-term care facility that determines that it does generate HWPs must then conduct further analysis to determine the nature of its obligations under Subpart P. 

Scope of Obligations under Subpart P – Amount of Waste Generated

Once the determinations have been made that a long-term care facility is covered by the final rule and has HWPs, the analysis shifts from the type of facility and nature of the waste to the amount of the waste, to determine the scope of the facility’s obligations under Subpart P. Specifically, the next inquiry is the amount of HWPs that the facility generates. Under RCRA, a “Generator” is a person whose act or process produces hazardous waste or whose act first causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation. Therefore, a facility that makes the determination to “discard” a pharmaceutical becomes a Generator. A facility that generates less than or equal to any of the following per calendar month qualifies as a Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG) :

  • 100 kg (220 pounds) of hazardous waste; or 
  • 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of acute hazardous waste.

Under the final rule, long-term care facilities with 20 or fewer beds are presumed to be VSQGs, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the EPA Administrator to establish that a facility is not a VSQG. Facilities with more than 20 beds, however, bear the responsibility of demonstrating that they qualify as a VSQG.

If a facility generates total hazardous waste in amounts exceeding the VSQG thresholds, it must treat its HWPs in accordance with the management standards of Subpart P. While VSQGs may opt to handle their HWPs in accordance with the management standards of Subpart P, they are not required to do so except for the sewering ban and empty container provisions of Subpart P. If a VSQG does not opt to comply with the management standards of Subpart P, its HWPs are subject to the general hazardous waste provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 262.14, which may be less than the requirements of Subpart P. Further, a long-term care facility that is a VSQG may dispose of its HWPs (other than contaminated personal protective equipment or clean-up materials) in an on-site collection receptacle of an authorized collector that is registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), provided the contents are collected, stored, transported, destroyed and disposed of in compliance with all applicable regulations for controlled substances.

Whether a long-term care facility that qualifies as a VSQG opts to treat its HWPs in accordance with the management standards of Subpart P likely will depend on (1) the willingness of the facility to undertake the monthly calculations, monitoring and recordkeeping required to demonstrate that their hazardous waste is within the limits established for VSQGs, or (2) whether the decision not to comply with Subpart P would render the facility subject to more onerous requirements on other hazardous waste that it generates. If a facility also generates non-pharmaceutical RCRA hazardous waste, such as lab wastes for example, those wastes are not regulated under Subpart P but under the existing RCRA regulations. The standard regulations become more stringent as the amount of applicable waste increases. Facilities could decrease the overall amount of waste and thus lessen the impact of the standard regulations by not including the HWPs that are managed instead under Subpart P. 

Scope of Obligations under Subpart P – Prescription HWPs versus Non-Prescription HWPs and Non-Creditable Prescription HWPs versus Potentially Creditable Prescription HWPs

Once the determination has been made that a long-term care facility is subject to the management standards of Subpart P, the requirements vary based on whether or not the pharmaceutical required a prescription. For prescription drugs, a facility must determine if it is managing a potentially creditable HWP or a non-creditable HWP. A “potentially creditable hazardous waste pharmaceutical” is a prescription HWP that has a “reasonable expectation to receive manufacturer credit through reverse distribution and is (1) in original manufacturer packaging (except pharmaceuticals that were subject to a recall) even if opened; (2) undispensed; and (3) unexpired or less than one year past expiration date.”

A non-creditable HWP is a prescription pharmaceutical that does not meet the above three criteria and therefore is not likely to receive credit back through reverse distribution. Non-prescription HWPs that do not have a reasonable expectation to be legitimately used, reused or reclaimed are also considered non-creditable HWPs. On the other hand, non-prescription over the counter pharmaceuticals that go through reverse logistics because they have a reasonable expectation of being recycled are not “Solid Waste” under RCRA at all, and therefore are not subject to Subpart P either. The management standards for potentially creditable HWPs are not as stringent as those for non-creditable HWPs.

Because of the requirement that the pharmaceutical be undispensed, it is likely that only long-term care facilities that have an in-house long-term care pharmacy will be managing potentially creditable HWPs. Those long-term care facilities that contract for their pharmacy services with a long-term care pharmacy will be managing non-creditable HWPs because pharmaceuticals are considered to be dispensed when the order is filled by the external pharmacy.

Unlike the existing general RCRA standards for the management of hazardous wastes, standards for HWPs under the new Subpart P are the same regardless of the amounts generated or the places where they are accumulated. 

Management Standards for Non-Creditable HWPs

Notification – A long-term care facility that is subject to the requirements of Subpart P must notify the EPA Regional Administrator within 60 days of the effective date of Subpart P (or within 60 days of becoming subject to Subpart P) that it is a healthcare facility operating under Subpart P, even if the facility already has an EPA Identification Number. Notification may be filed electronically. The facility must keep a copy of the notification on file for as long as the facility is subject to Subpart P. If the facility subsequently qualifies as a VSQG and elects to withdraw from Subpart P, it must so notify the EPA Regional Administrator and may not begin operating under the conditional exemption applicable to VSQGs generally under RCRA until notification has been made. Withdrawal notifications must be kept on file for a period of three (3) years.

Training – All facility personnel that manage HWPs must be trained and be “thoroughly familiar” with proper waste handling and emergency procedures relative to their responsibilities. EPA has not stated whether the agency will offer compliance assistance or training materials to facilities. As a result, because the final rule will become effective six months following publication in the Federal Register, facilities should begin exploring their options for training as early as possible.

Hazardous Waste Determination – The facility must determine whether a non-creditable pharmaceutical is a HWP. In lieu of making such a determination, the facility may choose to manage all waste pharmaceuticals as HWPs under Subpart P.

Containers – Because a facility will likely accumulate HWPs for some period of time before shipping them off-site, the final rule prescribes standards for containers that will be used to store HWPs. Generally, any container used to accumulate HWPs must be structurally sound, compatible with its contents, and lack evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions. Such container must be kept closed and secured so as to prevent unauthorized access to its contents.

Labeling Containers – All containers used to accumulate HWP must be labeled or clearly marked with the phrase “Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals.”

Maximum Accumulation Time – A facility may accumulate non-creditable HWPs on-site for a period not to exceed one year without a permit. The period begins on the date the pharmaceutical first becomes a waste, and the facility is responsible for demonstrating how long HWPs have been accumulating. The final rule allows the facility to make this demonstration by marking/labeling the container, maintaining an inventory system or by placing the HWPs in a specific area and identifying the earliest date that any of the HWPs in that area became a waste. To the extent that any HWPs are able to be commingled safely in a container, the date on which the very first HWP was deposited in the container would start the one year clock running.

Land Disposal Restrictions – A facility must comply with extensive requirements pertaining to land disposal restrictions at 40 C.F.R. Section 268.7(a), but these have been relaxed to the extent that the individual waste codes no longer need to be identified on the land disposal restriction notification.

Shipping – As noted above, a long-term care facility may accumulate non-creditable HWPs on-site only for a limited time before it must ship them off-site to a pre-designated authorized facility for treatment, storage or disposal. The final rule includes specific requirements for such shipments.

  • Pre-Transport
    • Packaging, Labeling and Marking – Generally, all waste must be packaged, labeled and marked in accordance with applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.
      • Containers of 119 gallons or less must be marked with specific words and information, including “HAZARDOUS WASTE.”
      • With limited exceptions specified in the final rule, lab packs that will be incinerated are not required to be marked with EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers.
    • Placarding – A long-term care facility must placard or offer the initial transporter the appropriate placards as specified under DOT regulations.
  • Manifests – A facility must use a uniform manifest and comply with applicable manifest requirements except that instead of listing the individual waste codes, the facility should write “PHARMS” on the form.
  • Facilities may ship HWPs across state lines, but will only be able to use the provisions in Subpart P if both states have adopted the same regulations (see below).

Managing Rejected Shipments – A long-term care facility will need to ship any rejected shipments of non-creditable HWPs to a new designated and authorized facility within 90 days of their return.

Reporting – There is no requirement to report the amounts of HWPs generated at a facility unless specifically requested by the EPA. Other than the initial notification, the only report required under the new rule is when the facility does not receive back a copy of a fully received manifest from the receiving facility in connection with a shipment.

Record keeping – A health care facility must keep a copy of each manifest, exception report, and hazardous waste determination test result and analysis for three years. All records must be readily available during an inspection.

Response to Spills – Spills of HWPs must be immediately contained and the cleanup materials managed themselves as HWPs.

Accepting Non-Creditable HWPs from an Off-Site Facility that is a VSQG – A facility may accept non-creditable HWPs from a VSQG, such as when a health care facility returns drugs back to a pharmacy, even though the receiving facility does not have a RCRA permit, if the receiving facility (i) is under the same control as the transferring facility or has a business relationship, (ii) is operating under Subpart P, (iii) manages the new wastes under Subpart P, and (iv) keeps records of the shipment for three years.

Management Standards for Potentially Creditable HWPs

As noted above, because the definition of a potentially creditable HWP requires that a pharmaceutical be undispensed, and the use of a third party long-term care pharmacy results in medication being dispensed to a resident by the pharmacy rather than the facility, most long-term care facilities will not be managing potentially creditable HWPs. However, for those facilities that maintain their own in-house long-term care pharmacy, the requirements of the final rule with respect to potentially creditable HWPs are relevant as the facility is likely to have undispensed prescription medications on hand that can qualify as potentially creditable HWPs that can be sent to a reverse distributor.

  • Accepting Potentially Creditable HWPs from an Off-Site Facility that is a VSQG – A facility may accept potentially creditable HWPs from a VSQG, such as when a care facility returns drugs back to a pharmacy, even though the receiving facility does not have a RCRA permit, if the receiving facility (i) is under the same control as the transferring facility or has a business relationship, (ii) is operating under Subpart P, (iii) manages the new wastes under Subpart P, and (iv) keeps records of the shipment for three years.
  • Only Potentially Creditable HWPs – A facility is prohibited from sending hazardous wastes other than potentially creditable HWPs to a reverse distributor.
  • Reporting – There is no requirement to report the amounts of HWPs generated at a facility unless specifically requested by EPA.
  • Recordkeeping – A facility that initiates a shipment of potentially creditable HWPs to a reverse distributor must retain for a period of three years paper or electronic records of (i) the confirmation of delivery, and (ii) shipping papers prepared in accordance with DOT regulations. All records must be readily available during an inspection.
  • Response to Spills – Spills of potentially creditable HWPs must be immediately contained and the cleanup materials managed as non-creditable HWPs.
  • Shipping – Unlike with respect to a non-creditable HWP, a manifest is not required for shipping potentially creditable HWPs to a reverse distributor. Nevertheless, the facility must comply with all applicable DOT regulations in 49 C.F.R. Parts 171 through 180 for any HWP that meets the definition of “hazardous material” in 49 C.F.R. Section 171.8. Also, the receiving reverse distributor must provide confirmation to the facility that it has received the shipment. If the facility has not received such confirmation within 35 calendar days from the date the potentially creditable HWPs were sent, the facility must contact the carrier and the reverse distributor promptly to report that the confirmation was not received and to determine the status of the potentially creditable HWPs.

Conditional Exemption for HWPs that are Controlled Substances:

The final rule includes a conditional exemption from RCRA requirements for HWPs that are listed on a schedule of controlled substances by the DEA. The conditional exemption will apply if the HWPs are collected, stored, transported, and disposed of in compliance with all applicable DEA regulations for controlled substances, and will be destroyed by a method that DEA has publicly deemed in writing to meet their non-retrievable standard of destruction or combusted at one of five types of combustion facilities. 

Generally Applicable Provisions of Subpart P to all HWPs:

The following provisions apply to all health care facilities, regardless of whether the facilities are managing creditable or non-creditable HWPs or are required to comply with the other provisions of Subpart P.

  • Sewering Ban – All health care facilities covered by the rule are prohibited from discharging HWPs to a sewer system that passes through to a publicly-owned treatment works.
  • Empty Containers – Under the new regulations, certain stock, dispensing and unit-dose containers are considered “empty” and therefore not regulated as hazardous waste under RCRA, even if minor pharmaceutical residue remains, if they have been emptied using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from that type of container. This also applies to syringes provided that the contents have been removed by fully depressing the plunger into the patient, another delivery device such as an intravenous bag, or a hazardous waste collection container. Intravenous bags avoid RCRA regulation provided the pharmaceuticals inside have been fully administered to a patient. All other types of containers—whether partially or completely empty—are to be managed as non-creditable HWPs unless they meet the general RCRA empty test for non-acute hazardous wastes.

Over the Counter Nicotine Replacement Therapies:

Nicotine and salts are currently included in the hazardous waste listed code P075 . The new rule exempts FDA approved over the counter nicotine replacement therapies, specifically patches, gums, and lozenges, from waste code P075. The rule does not exempt e-cigarettes, nicotine-containing e-liquids or prescription nicotine replacement therapies because they are not regulated in the same way as the exempted methods. Nevertheless, any nicotine replacement therapy that has been used in the manner initially intended is not a “solid waste” under RCRA and therefore is not a “hazardous waste” either.

Effective Date; Authorized State RCRA Programs:

The final rule will become effective six months following publication in the Federal Register; however, many states operate their own hazardous waste program. Once authorized by EPA, state hazardous waste programs operate in lieu of the RCRA regulations, though authorized states are required to adopt new regulations that are more stringent than existing rules. Most provisions of the pharmaceutical waste final rule are more stringent than the current RCRA generator regulations. Accordingly, authorized state programs will be required to adopt those provisions such that the new rule will not take effect in any of those states until it has been adopted and the state regulations updated. In contrast, the ban against HWP disposal in a drain or a toilet will be effective in every state as soon as it is effective under Federal law because the sewering prohibition component of the new rule, also more stringent than existing requirements, was adopted under separate legal authority. States are not required to adopt the part of the rule exempting over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapies from the hazardous waste requirements because it is less stringent. Also, facilities should be aware that states may include more stringent requirements than those included in the final rule. As a result, facilities will need to monitor adoption and implementation efforts in those states very closely. 

Conclusion:

There can be no doubt that EPA’s final rule will require health care facilities, particularly long-term care facilities other than assisted living facilities, to navigate the new regulatory framework provided in Subpart P, while still potentially being subject to many other RCRA-related provisions and to regulations from other Federal agencies including the DOT. Additionally, facilities in states that have their own authorized hazardous waste program will need to monitor their state agency to determine exactly which rules apply and when. With an effective date only six months following publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, no guarantees of education or compliance assistance from EPA other than three webinars scheduled for February and March, 2019, and steep fines for violations, facilities will be hard-pressed to come up to speed in time. Health care facilities are well advised to begin their efforts now to understand the requirements, draft and implement effective policies and procedures, develop a staff training program, and enter into such contractual relationships as may be necessary to ensure compliance.

This article has been republished with the permission of the authors. It was first published on the AGG website. A pdf version, with footnotes can be found at AGG Legal Insight.


About the Authors

Brooke F. Dickerson focuses her practice on transaction, regulatory, compliance and permitting matters. With regards to environmental work, she has significant experience with Superfund (CERCLA), hazardous waste (RCRA and HWMA), the Georgia Hazardous Site Response Act (HSRA), solid waste, Brownfields, wetlands, and site evaluation, assessment and remediation issues. She also advises clients on stormwater compliance, green leasing issues and green/sustainable building practices. With regards to construction work, Ms. Dickerson advises owners and developers on the drafting and negotiation of architect, construction and construction management agreements. She has represented clients in connection with the construction of office, multi-family, mixed use and tenant improvement projects. She also advises clients on OSHA matters and has represented several companies in obtaining reduced or dismissed penalties in settlement negotiations. 

Jennifer Hilliard is Of Counsel in the Healthcare Practice. Ms. Hilliard focuses her practice on long-term care and aging services issues generally. She has extensive experience with nursing home regulatory matters, compliance and operations. Additionally, she has significant experience with Federal public policy and government affairs in such related areas as Medicare and Medicaid regulation, home health and hospice regulation, DEA controlled substances regulation, OSHA and other labor and employment issues affecting aging services providers, and federal non-profit tax issues. Prior to joining AGG, Ms. Hilliard served for over 18 years in a variety of legal and advocacy-related capacities at LeadingAge, a Washington, DC based trade association for non-profit long-term care and aging services providers.

New Year, New Environmental Rules: Alberta’s Revised Remediation Rules Take Effect in 2019

by Dufferin Harper and Lindsey Mosher, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

On January 1, 2019, significant amendments to Alberta’s Remediation Certificate Regulation came into force. These include:

  • Renaming the regulation the Remediation Regulation
  • Creating a site-based remediation certificate
  • Creating a new reporting requirement for impacts
  • Defaulting to the application of Tier 1 rather than Tier 2 Guidelines
  • Issuing a Tier 2 compliance letter
  • Establishing a new mandatory remedial measures timeline

As discussed in more detail below, many of the amendments address long-standing concerns within the existing remediation certification process. However, in several instances they also introduce new areas of regulatory uncertainty.

SITE-BASED REMEDIATION CERTIFICATE

One of the primary concerns with the existing regime is that it is too limited in scope. Although it provides for remediation certificates to be issued for specific areas of land impacted by a contaminant release, it does not enable a property owner to obtain regulatory signoff for a complete site as opposed to only an area of a site.

In response to that concern, the Remediation Regulation introduces a new type of remediation certificate applicable to a complete site, which is referred to as a “site-based remediation certificate”. A site-based remediation certificate confirms that all contaminants and areas of potential concern both on and off site have been addressed and necessarily involves the submission of more extensive documentation than what is required for a limited remediation certificate.  To assist in the application process, the Alberta government is expected to develop and release a new application form and guide for a site-based remediation certificate application prior to January 2019.

NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENT

A person responsible for a release currently has a statutory obligation to report the release. In addition to this existing obligation, the Remediation Regulation imposes an additional obligation to report any new information about the “impact” of a released substance. Neither of the terms “new information”, nor “impact”, are defined in the Remediation Regulation, and it remains to be seen what additional guidance, if any, will be provided to clarify the scope of the additional obligation. Until that occurs, or until the courts clarify the scope of the obligation, uncertainty will likely prevail.

APPLICATION OF TIER 1 VERSUS TIER 2 GUIDELINES

Under the current Remediation Certificate Regulation, a person applying for a remediation certificate may elect to apply either generic Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines (Tier 1 Guidelines) or site -specific Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines (Tier 2 Guidelines).

The Remediation Regulation removes this discretionary election. Instead, the Tier 1 Guidelines will always be the default remediation standard. Regulatory approval will be required to remediate to Tier 2 Guidelines.

TIER 2 COMPLIANCE LETTER

Another major concern (and criticism) of the existing regime involves the situation where contaminant levels exceed Tier 1 Guidelines but not Tier 2 Guidelines. In such a situation, if the Tier 2 Guidelines are applied, the affected area will not require remediation. Notwithstanding the levels exceed Tier 1 Guidelines and would otherwise require remediation but for the application of the Tier 2 Guidelines, the regulator’s position is that, since there has been no “remediation”, it is unable to issue a “remediation certificate”.  The Remediation Regulation addresses this situation, albeit indirectly.  Rather than amending the scenarios under which a remediation certificate can be issued to account for the above situation, the Remediation Regulation introduces a hybrid type of approval, described as a “Tier 2 compliance letter”. Such a letter will be issued by the regulator when it is satisfied the area or the site meets Tier 2 Guidelines and therefore does not need to be remediated. The difficulty with such a hybrid approach is that it is unclear what type of legal protection a “Tier 2 compliance letter” provides. For example, a remediation certificate currently provides protection against a subsequent environmental protection order being issued for the same contaminant and area. A Tier 2 compliance letter provides no similar protection.  Furthermore, no reference to a Tier 2 compliance letter is set out in Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and its legal significance is therefore unknown.

NEW REMEDIAL MEASURES TIMELINE

The Remediation Regulation introduces a mandatory timeline for remedial measures for all releases reported after January 1, 2019. If remediation cannot be completed to the satisfaction of the regulator within the following two years, a remedial action plan acceptable to the regulator must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Remediation Regulation.

The timeline is not mandatory for the complete remediation of a release. Rather, it is a timeline for the submission of a remedial action plan that will describe what further remedial activities will occur in the future. As such, it appears to be nothing more than an administrative requirement as opposed to an actual remedial efficiency requirement.

NEXT STEPS

The Remediation Regulation came into force as of January 1, 2019, and all releases now must comply with its provisions. Releases reported before January 1, 2019 continue to be regulated in accordance with the old regime under the Remediation Certificate Regulation.

This article was first published on the Blakes Business Class website. It is republished with the permission of the authors and Blakes. Copyright of this article remains with Blakes.


About the Authors

Dufferin (Duff) Harper practices in the areas of environmental law, commercial litigation and regulatory law. He routinely acts for clients on environmental due diligence and liability issues, especially as they pertain to brownfield redevelopment and transportation of dangerous goods. On the corporate side, he specializes in crafting complicated environmental agreements that allocate environmental risks and address remediation requirements. He also advises clients on greenhouse gas matters including the purchase and sale of greenhouse gas emissions credits, offset credits and other environmental attributes.

Duff has acted as lead counsel in several litigation cases involving contaminated sites, both on behalf of contaminated property owners and parties who were allegedly responsible for the contamination. On the regulatory front, he has appeared before numerous levels of courts and assessment tribunals, including tribunals constituted pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) ), the National Energy Board (NEB) and numerous provincial regulators.

Duff also provides strategic regulatory compliance and environmental impact assessment advice to industrial clients, such as conventional oil and gas companies, mining companies, companies operating in the oil sands, and liquefied natural gas proponents.

Lindsey Mosher’s practice focuses on energy regulation, as well as environmental and administrative law. She has experience in a broad range of regulatory matters, including regulatory compliance issues, regulatory approvals and hearings, and corporate matters.

Prior to joining Blakes, Lindsey obtained industry experience working in the legal department of a large Canadian oil and gas company, Alberta’s utilities regulator and a large Canadian telecommunications company.

Lindsey has appeared before Alberta’s utilities regulator, the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2019: Hazardous Materials

The ACTA Group of Bergeson & Campbell PC recently wrote an article in the National Law Review (NLR) forecasting the U.S. federal and international chemical regulatory policy related to hazardous materials for the coming year. The two major areas covered are hazardous materials transportation and trade.

Under hazardous materials transportation, the NLR article predicts that the
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will face the challenge of a growing burden on it as the scope and complexity of its mission grows. The article predicts this pressure will require the PHMSA to fundamentally rethink how it will use data, information, and technology to achieve its safety goals.

The article states that new information and research will drive much of what PHMSA undertakes in 2019. Advances in technology, enhanced commerce, and a rapidly evolving global trade in hazardous materials must be matched by PHMSA if it is to satisfy its mandates. At this point, PHMSA appears to recognize these new challenges and is poised to maintain its highly honed edge on hazardous materials transportation.

Specific actions that PHMSA will undertake in 2019 include the following:

  • Legislative requirements in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, especially as it applies to high hazard flammable trains – PHMSA is slated to promulgate a final rule pursuant to the FAST Act that will expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans based on thresholds of liquid petroleum that apply to an entire train ;
  • Transportation of lithium batteries by air;
  • Conversion of special permits;
  • International standards harmonization; and
  • Identifying research gaps and determining priorities.

The NLR article states that PHMSA can be expected to continue to promulgate rules in compliance with its statutory mandates but it also recognizes the need to shore up gaps and to keep pace with an accelerating array of products that are transported in commerce. New information and research will drive much of what PHMSA undertakes in 2019. Advances in technology, enhanced commerce, and a rapidly evolving global trade in hazardous materials must be matched by PHMSA if it is to satisfy its mandates.

With respect to U.S. trade with other countries, the NRL article discusses the five pillars of U.S. trade policy:

  1. Trade Policy that Supports National Security Policy;
  2. Strengthening the American Economy;
  3. Negotiating Trade Deals that Work for All Americans;
  4. Enforcing and Defending U.S. Trade Laws; and
  5. Strengthening the Multilateral Trading System.

Specific trade actions are discussed in the NRL article that apply hazardous materials including the new agreement that replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement and the new focus of the U.S. on bi-lateral trade agreements.

Is Ontario “Open for Business” when it comes to Excess Soil Management?

by  Grant Walsom, XCG Consultants

Since the 2013 call for a review in the regulatory gaps surrounding the ability for enforcement on mismanagement of excess soils in Ontario, the Ministry of Environment (now called Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks – MECP) has tirelessly worked towards a proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package for Ontario.  The efforts have included an unprecedented process of stakeholder listening sessions, consultations and engagement group meetings and inter-Ministerial reviews over the past 5 years.

The proposed Excess Soil Regulatory Package was formed through 2 separate postings on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) and is reportedly ready for Cabinet Approval.  Further, the regulatory package is formulated with general overall acceptance by the construction and development industry in Ontario as well as the supporting industries (i.e., legal, consulting, laboratories) and municipalities.  It is generally agreed that the proposed Regulation outlines possible opportunities for beneficial reuse with sustainable considerations (examples would be reduced truck traffic and reduced greenhouse gases creation).

We are coming to understand that the current Conservative Provincial Government is strongly opposed to a majority of initiatives created by the previous Liberal Government.  The Conservatives are in favour of the red-tape reduction, streamlining operations and fiscal responsibility.  In fact, there is now a Deputy Minister of Red Tape and Regulatory Burden Reduction in the Ontario Cabinet.  His job is to make Ontario “Open for Business.”  Any new Regulation such as those being reviewed by MECP could certainly be viewed as counter-productive in terms of red-tape reduction.    However, with the release of the Made-in- Ontario Environment Plan on November 29, 2018, it appears that Excess Soil Regulation will be enacted in some form in the not-to-distant future.  There will no doubt be some changes to the proposed Regulatory package, but it is good to see that Regulation will proceed.

To date, one of the biggest challenges that the enforcement regime of the Environment Ministry had was the gap in how excess soil (impacted with contaminants or not) could be classified as a “waste material” if it’s not managed properly or if it’s illegally dumped.  We have all seen the extensive media coverage of a number of illegal dump sites, innocent property owners mislead on the quality of the fill they are accepting, and private air-fields who have capitalized on the regulatory gaps in Ontario where excess soil is concerned.  Enforcement against illegal dumping or misrepresentation of the soil quality is not clear or easily achieved under the current Environmental Protection Act and regulations such as Regulation 347 (Waste Management).  Minor amendments to Regulation 153/04 (Brownfields Regulation) have also been proposed to assist in streamlining and simplifying filing of Records of Site Condition and redevelopment of Brownfield properties.  Further definitions of soil, waste and inert fill are also forthcoming in the new proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package.

One of the main benefits of the proposed Excess Soil Regulation is the clarity it provides in the expectations of appropriate management of excess soil along with the steps that would be followed to provide the level of certainty that the public would expect.  It puts a heavy onus on the generator of the excess soil (or the source site) to assess the quality against a set of new standards.  The Standards were developed as a subset of the O. Reg. 153/04 Brownfield Standards, aimed at assisting in identifying acceptable and beneficial re-use of the excess soil.

Beneficial reuse of excess soil has a strong consideration for soil quality in terms of chemical testing to assess for contaminants; however, Ontario soils are highly variable with respect to the geotechnical quality for engineered reuse (i.e., silt, clay, sands, gravels and poor quality mixed fill).  Recovered excess soil may require some screening/grading to classify the geotechnical qualities prior to identifying an appropriate engineered and beneficial reuse.  Market-based solutions and opportunities for excess soil supply and demand services are sure to be identified as creative Ontarians have historically shown innovation in finding geotechnical solutions for excess soil.  The new regulatory package allows for this to happen to the benefit of both sender and receiver parties. Increasingly, clients are also choosing to avoid moving soils by employing methods to limit or even eliminate the amount of soils that have to be moved from a poor fill site with things like landscaped architectural features or ground improvement to treat soils in place.

Another benefit of the proposed excess soil regulation is the placement of the responsibility to ensure and “certify” the quality of the excess soil and the appropriate handling and re-use of the material by the source site or generator.  This requires a shift in the thinking around management of any excess soil materials to be assessed and pre-planned at the beginning of a project, versus at the last minute and left to the excavation contractor, as has historically been done.  The shift in thinking and pre-planning may take time, but with the assistance of the “Qualified Person” community in Ontario, the planning can be simplified.  The industry is already starting to shift to a more responsible management of excess soils, with the knowledge of potential Regulatory changes. The proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package has a well-defined transition period of two full years to be fully enacted, giving the construction and development industry time to become used to the shift in thinking and pre-planning as well as the procurement groups to ensure that the appropriate assessment and characterization activities are completed.

The benefits of many aspects of the proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package are clear and are desired in Ontario.  The business community has hoped that the current Conservative Government in Ontario understands that the Excess Soil Regulatory package has been requested by the citizens of Ontario, and formulated through an exhaustive consultation and engagement of the various stakeholders in the Province. It has also been hoped that the current Provincial Government sees the value in many aspects of the proposed regulatory package for management of excess soils.  With reference to Excess Soil Regulation in the Environment Plan, it certainly appears that the current Provincial Government does see the value.  Further, the complimentary minor amendments to the soil and waste definitions are needed as are the proposed amendments to the Brownfield Regulation.

Since the June 2018 election, the construction and development industries in Ontario have been patiently waiting for clarity on how the current Provincial Government plans to proceed.  It is clear that this new legislative change will help to make Ontario open for business and it appears that the current Provincial Government agrees.  We will now see what changes to the proposed Regulatory Package will be made, hopefully, sooner than later.

This article was first published in the Geosolv website.

About the Author

Grant Walsom, P.Eng., is a Partner at XCG Consulting Limited and recognized as a Qualified Person in Ontario under the Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04). He proudly serves on the Board of Directors at the Ontario Environment Industry Association (ONEIA) and the Canadian Brownfields Network (CBN). Grant can be reached at grant.walsom@xcg.com.

Canada takes final steps to ban Asbestos

by Paul Manning, Manning Environmental Law

Environment and Climate Change Canada, along with Health Canada, published the Prohibition of Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II on October 17, 2018.

These new regulations apply to any person who manufactures, imports, sells or uses asbestos or products containing asbestos.

Thetford, Quebec open pit asbestos mine

The regulations prohibit the import, sale and use of all forms of asbestos as well as the manufacture, import, sale and use of products containing asbestos, with a limited number of exclusions:

  • ongoing exclusions for
    • the transfer of physical possession or control of asbestos or a product containing asbestos to allow its disposal
    • the re-use of asbestos in existing road infrastructure into new road infrastructure or in asbestos mining site restoration
    • the import, sale or use of military equipment serviced overseas with a product containing asbestos if there were no technically or economically feasible asbestos-free alternatives available
    • the import, sale or use of asbestos and products containing asbestos for display in a museum or for use in a laboratory
  • exclusions until
    • December 31, 2022 for the import, sale or use of products containing asbestos to service equipment in nuclear facilities, or to service military equipment, if there are no technically or economically feasible asbestos-free alternatives available,
    • December 31, 2029 for the import and use of asbestos for chlor-alkali facilities using asbestos diaphragm technology

The regulations include:

  • permit provisions for unforeseen circumstances where asbestos or a product containing asbestos is used to protect human health or the environment, if there is no technically or economically feasible asbestos-free alternative available
  • permit provisions for the import and use of products containing asbestos to service military equipment and equipment in a nuclear facility, if there is no technically or economically feasible asbestos-free alternative available
  • provisions requiring the submission of reports from museums, laboratories, and military, nuclear and chlor-alkali facilities, as well as permit holders, who import, use or display asbestos or products containing asbestos. The preparation and implementation of an asbestos management plan is also required in most cases

The regulations do not apply to:

  • asbestos integrated into a structure or infrastructure before the day on which the Regulations come into force (such as asbestos integrated into buildings and civil engineering works), or to products containing asbestos used before the day on which the regulations come into force (such as equipment installed in a facility, vehicles, ships, and airplanes)
  • asbestos and products containing asbestos in transit through Canada
  • mining residues, except for certain high risk activities which are prohibited, including:
  • the sale of asbestos mining residues for use in construction and landscaping activities, unless authorized by the province, and
  • the use of asbestos mining residues to manufacture a product that contains asbestos

In addition to these regulations, the existing Export of Substances on the Export Control List Regulations (ESECLR) and Schedule 3 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 were amended to prohibit exports of asbestos, with a limited number of exceptions.  These provisions ensure that Canada continues to meet its export obligations under international conventions, including the Rotterdam Convention. The regulations and related amendments to the ESECLR come into force on December 30, 2018.

This article is republished and first appeared on the Manning Environmental Law website.

_________________________________

About the Author

Paul Manning is the principal of Manning Environmental Law and an environmental law specialist certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Paul has been selected as one of the world’s leading Environmental Lawyers by Who’s Who Legal: 2016.

Paul advises clients on a wide range of environmental law issues and represents them as counsel before tribunals and the courts. His practice focuses on environmental, energy, planning and Aboriginal law.

Paul holds a Masters degree in Environmental Law and obtained an accreditation in the UK as an expert in Planning Law. He is on the Executive Committee of the National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. Paul has a special interest in renewable energy and climate change regulation and holds a Certificate in Carbon Finance from the University of Toronto.

Amendments to Canada’s Hazardous Products Regulations

The Canadian government recently made amendments to the Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR) under the Hazardous Products Act.

The objective of the recent amendment of the HPR is to provide industry with the option to use prescribed concentration ranges to protect the actual chemical ingredient concentrations or concentration ranges on Safety data sheets (SDSs) for hazardous workplace products in Canada rather than submitting CBI applications under the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act (HMIRA).

SDSs, which accompany hazardous products sold or imported for use in Canadian workplaces, must disclose the concentrations or concentration ranges of the ingredients in a product that present health hazards in accordance with the Hazardous Products Regulations (HPR).  This information could be considered confidential business information (CBI) to industry.  CBI for workplace hazardous products can be protected by filing an application with Health Canada under the (HMIRA) and paying the associated fee.

Regulated parties proposed that they should have a means to protect the concentrations or concentration ranges of ingredients without having the burden and cost of the HMIRA application process.

Health Canada is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Hazardous Products Act (HPA) and its regulations.  The purpose of the HPA is to protect the health and safety of Canadians by regulating the sale and import of hazardous products for use in the workplace.

Ontario Transitioning Municipal Hazardous Waste Program

The Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change recently issued direction to Stewardship Ontario (SO) to wind up the Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program by December 31, 2020. This wind up will allow the transition of materials collected under the program to individual producer responsibility under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016.

The Minister’s letters can be found at:

Information related to the program wind up and future consultations will be posted to the Program Wind Up page when available. Until the wind up date, the Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program will continue to operate without disruption. This includes the operation of the Industry Stewardship Plans managed by the Automotive Materials Stewardship, the Product Care Association and SodaStream.

The Ontario Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program recycles or properly disposes of paint, antifreeze, batteries, fertilizers and other hazardous or special materials.  These wastes will continue to be managed in Ontario, but under a new program.  The winding down of the existing program is part of the provinces attempt to shift to a circular economy – a new waste management approach where waste is seen as a resource that can be recovered, reused and reintegrated into the production stream.

Ontario’s new waste management framework includes new legislation and a strategy to guide progress that will protect the environment, drive innovation, performance and competitiveness, and stimulate economic growth and development.