Reply to Comments Received in Submissions on the Proposed Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations

A number of industry and association stakeholders commented on the proposed listing of treated wood in the proposed Regulations. These stakeholders requested that treated wood be removed from Schedule 3 and commented that:

There is No Scientific Basis for Classifying Treated Wood as a Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material - To the contrary, numerous studies show that treated wood can be safely and responsibly disposed of in non-hazardous landfills or recycled for energy and other purposes.

The Proposal Would Impose Extraordinary Costs on Industry and the Canadian Public. - One of the stated purposes of the proposal is to harmonize the definitions of the transboundary waste regulations with the interprovincial regulations being developed for hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials. There are some 1.13 billion cubic feet of treated wood in use in Canada. If post-use treated wood is designated as hazardous, the cost of disposal could exceed $5 billion, according to a recent estimate by the Canadian Institute of Treated Wood.

The Proposal Will Foreclose Practical and Environmentally Protective Management Options for Out-of-Service Treated Wood - Waste disposal facilities in the U.S. will likely discontinue accepting Canadian treated wood if it is classified as hazardous. Thus, such a designation would severely limit existing and future management options for post-use treated wood.

The Proposed Regulations Undermine the Efforts of the Wood Preservation Strategic Options Process - The proposed classification of post-use treated wood as a hazardous waste would likely severely undermine the implementation of a comprehensive cradle-to-grave management system for treated wood, that is being jointly developed by industry and the Canadian government under the Strategic Options Process ("SOP").

The Proposal Will Compromise Canada's Ability to Export Municipal Solid Waste to the U.S. - Because there is no feasible method of segregating treated wood from the considerable quantity of municipal solid waste ("MSW") exported from Canada to the U.S. each year, the classification of treated wood as hazardous waste would likely lead to U.S. restrictions on Canadian shipments of MSW.

The Proposed Designation of Treated Wood as a Hazardous Waste is Contrary to Sound Logic - The proposed HAZ6 listing for treated wood which is stored or disposed of by release to land or water is illogical, because it would apply specifically to wood that contains a preservative that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency ("PMRA") has reviewed and expressly approved for use on land, in water, and for storage.

Classifying Post-use Treated Wood as Hazardous Would Be Contrary to the Stated Objectives of the Proposed Regulations - The designation of treated wood as hazardous would clearly contradict the regulations' stated objective of ensuring compatibility with controls in the U.S., because the U.S. does not consider treated wood to be hazardous for purposes of disposal or recycling.

The Proposal is Inconsistent With Basel - The proposed designation of treated wood as hazardous is clearly inconsistent with the Basel Convention, which expressly exempts treated wood from listing as a presumptively hazardous waste.

The Designation of Treated Wood as a Hazardous Recyclable Material is Not Mandated by OECD Council Decision C(2001) 107/Final - The listing of treated wood as an Amber waste under OECD Council Decision C(2001) 107/Final does not justify its designation as a hazardous waste, given that most of the other Amber wastes are not listed as hazardous in the proposed regulations.

Application of the Schedule 5 Regulatory Limits to Treated Wood is Improper - It is necessary for the regulations to expressly provide that treated wood is not subject to the TCLP criteria of Schedule 5, which would be inconsistent with TDG Plain Language Regulations, which exempt treated wood products from the scope of the TDGs, including the leachate criteria.

Regarding item 6 in the schedule, BC does not currently regulate waste wood products treated with wood preservatives or wood protection products registered under the Pest Control Products Act (Canada). Designating this waste stream as hazardous in the federal export/import regulations will create an inconsistency between the federal and BC regulations.

Response: Treated wood destined for disposal or recycling is specifically listed in Schedule III of the current EIHWR. This is consistent with international agreements, as treated wood is listed under the OECD Decision, and can require control under the Basel Convention if it exhibits a hazard. Treated wood typically exhibits secondary hazards, such as environmental hazards (contaminated with listed environmental hazards at concentrations above 100 ppm) and, in some cases, leachate toxicity.

In CGI, Environment Canada proposed to regulate wood treated with a pest-control product registered under the Pest Control Products Act to clarify the current regulatory obligation.

Environment Canada agrees that this listing was broader in scope, and has removed treated wood from Schedule 3 of the proposed Regulations. Treated wood will be controlled under the proposed Regulations when it exhibits a hazardous characteristic as per the general definition of hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material. This maintains the status quo with regard to the current EIHWR, and will not result in any additional costs.

Environment Canada is working with industry to develop compliance-promotion material to clarify regulatory obligations that may be associated with treated wood.