Report on equivalency agreements
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) provides for equivalency agreements where provincial or territorial environmental legislation has provisions that are equivalent to the provisions of a regulation under CEPA. In order to satisfy these agreements the provincial or territorial regulations must achieve an equal or equivalent effect to the federal legislation. Equivalency of provincial regulations is evaluated based on the following criteria: equivalent standards, citizen’s request for investigations and equivalent penalties and enforcement provisions.
The federal government retains its responsibility for reporting annually to parliament on the administration of equivalency agreements. Only one province, Alberta, has entered into an equivalency agreement with the federal government, as described below.
This Agreement was signed on June 1, 1994. By virtue of the Agreement, on May 26, 1994, the Governor in Council declared that parts of the following federal CEPA Regulations did not apply in the province of Alberta:
- Vinyl Chloride Release Regulations;
- Secondary Lead Smelter Regulations;
- Pulp and Paper Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations; and
- Sections 4(1), 6(2), 6(3)(b), 7 and 9 of the Pulp and Paper Mill Defoamer and Wood Chip Regulations.
Provincial requirements, which achieve an equivalent effect to these CEPA Regulations, continue to be enforced by provincial officials. During 1997-98, pulp and paper mills were in full compliance with the defoamer regulations and the dioxin and furan regulations. Regarding the vinyl chloride regulations, there were a total of nine exceedences of vinyl chloride releases. Seven exceedences were above the limit of 10 ppm by volume and two of these exceedences were found to be over the daily (2 kilogram per day) limit. Regarding the seven exceedences by one vinyl chloride plant, Alberta Environmental Protection investigated the incidents and worked with company officials reviewing operating procedures, in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of similar future releases. Regarding the two incidents that were above the daily limit, Alberta Environmental Protection concluded that there was a due diligence defence on the part of the company for one of these incidents and closed the file with no enforcement actions planned. The second incident, was found to be due to operator error, and the company has undertaken to enhance operations to avoid future occurrences.