Bill C-32
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
|
SCHEDULE 6
|
|
|
ASSESSMENT OF WASTE OR OTHER MATTER |
|
|
1. This Schedule shall be applied with a view that acceptance of
disposal at sea under certain circumstances does not remove
the obligation to make further attempts to reduce the necessity
for disposal.
|
|
|
2. The initial stages in assessing alternatives to disposal at sea
shall, as appropriate, include an evaluation of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. In general terms, if the required audit reveals that
opportunities exist for waste prevention at source, an
applicant shall formulate and implement a waste prevention
strategy, where it has jurisdiction to do so, (in collaboration
with relevant local and national agencies) which includes
specific waste reduction targets and provision for further
waste prevention audits to ensure that these targets are being
met. Permit issuance or renewal shall be subject to compliance
with this requirement.
|
|
|
4. For dredged material, the goal of waste management shall be
to identify and control the sources of contamination. This
should be achieved through implementation of waste
prevention strategies and requires collaboration between the
relevant local and national agencies involved with the control
of point and non-point sources of pollution. Until this
objective is met, the problems of contaminated dredged
material may be addressed by using disposal management
techniques at sea or on land.
|
|
|
5. Applications to dispose of waste or other matter shall
demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given to
the following hierarchy of waste management options, which
implies an order of increasing environmental impact:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. A permit to dispose of waste or other matter shall be refused
if opportunities exist to re-use, recycle or treat the waste or
other matter without undue risks to human health or the
environment or disproportionate costs. The practical
availability of other means of disposal shall be considered in
the light of a comparative risk assessment involving both
disposal and the alternatives.
|
|
|
7. A detailed description and characterization of the waste or
other matter is an essential precondition for the consideration
of alternatives and the basis for a decision as to whether the
waste or other matter may be disposed of at sea. If the waste
or other matter is so poorly characterized that proper
assessment cannot be made of its potential impacts on human
health and the environment, the waste or other matter shall not
be disposed of at sea.
|
|
|
8. Characterization of the waste or other matter and their
constituents shall take into account
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. A national Action List shall be developed to provide a
mechanism for screening candidate waste or other matter and
their constituents on the basis of their potential effects on
human health and the marine environment. In selecting
substances for consideration in the Action List, priority shall
be given to toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative substances
from human sources (e.g. cadmium, mercury,
organohalogens, petroleum hydrocarbons and, whenever
relevant, arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, beryllium, chromium,
nickel and vanadium, organosilicon compounds, cyanides,
fluorides and pesticides or their by-products other than
organohalogens). An Action List can also be used as a trigger
mechanism for further waste prevention consideration.
|
|
|
10. The Action List shall specify an upper
level and may also specify a lower level. The upper level shall
be set so as to avoid, as much as reasonably possible, acute or
chronic effects on human health or on sensitive marine
organisms representative of the marine ecosystem.
Application of the Action List will result in three possible
categories of waste or other matter:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Information required to select a disposal
site shall include
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Assessment of potential effects shall lead
to a concise statement of the expected consequences of the sea
or land disposal options (i.e., the Impact Hypothesis). It
provides a basis for deciding whether to approve or reject the
proposed disposal option and for defining environmental
monitoring requirements.
|
|
|
13. The assessment for disposal shall, as
appropriate, integrate information on waste characteristics,
conditions at the proposed disposal site(s), fluxes and
proposed disposal techniques and specify the potential effects
on human health, living resources, amenities and other
legitimate uses of the sea. It shall, where it is reasonably
possible to do so, define the nature, temporal and spatial scales
and duration of expected impacts based on reasonably
conservative assumptions.
|
|
|
14. An analysis of each disposal option shall
be considered in light of a comparative assessment of the
following concerns: human health risks, environmental costs,
hazards (including accidents), economics and exclusion of
future uses. If this assessment reveals that adequate
information is not available to determine the likely effects of
the proposed disposal option, then this option shall not be
considered further. In addition, if the interpretation of the
comparative assessment shows the disposal option to be less
preferable, a permit for disposal at sea shall not be given.
|
|
|
15. Each assessment shall conclude with a
statement supporting a decision to issue or refuse a permit for
disposal at sea.
|
|
|
16. Monitoring is used to verify that permit
conditions are met (compliance monitoring) and that the
assumptions made during the permit review and site selection
process were correct and sufficient to protect human health
and the environment (field monitoring). It is essential that
such monitoring programs have clearly defined objectives.
|
|
|
17. A decision to issue a permit shall only be
made if all impact evaluations are completed, and where
reasonably possible, the monitoring requirements are
determined. The provisions of the permit shall ensure, as far
as practicable, that environmental disturbance and detriment
are minimized and the benefits maximized. Any permit issued
shall contain data and information specifying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18. Disposal sites shall be reviewed at regular
intervals, taking into account the results of monitoring and the
objectives of monitoring programs. Review of monitoring
results will indicate whether field programs need to be
continued, revised or terminated, and will contribute to
informed decisions regarding the continuance, modification
or closure of disposal sites. This provides an important
feedback mechanism for the protection of human health and
the marine environment.
|
|