Canada Gazette

The proposed Regulations Amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the proposed amendments) are a result of operational experience gained through implementing the environmental effects monitoring (EEM) requirements, as well as feedback from a multistakeholder group of policy experts brought together to work on the Smart Regulation Project on Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Pulp and Paper EEM. The proposed amendments are intended to improve the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the PPER), so that the pulp and paper EEM requirements are more effective and efficient. Minor changes will also be made to update the regulatory text and enhance its clarity and consistency.

The proposed amendments would come into force on the day on which they are registered.

On May 20, 1992, the PPER, made under the Fisheries Act, were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The PPER set limits for the maximum quantity of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) matter, which consumes oxygen dissolved in water, and the maximum quantity of suspended solids that may be deposited from pulp and paper manufacturing operations. They also prohibit the deposit of any effluent that is acutely lethal, as defined in the PPER. All pulp and paper mills are subject to the PPER, as are off-site treatment facilities (OSTFs) in cases where the proportion of pulp and paper mill effluents treated exceeds levels specified in the PPER.

A key element in the PPER is the requirement to conduct EEM studies on a periodic basis. These studies help assess the adequacy of the PPER in protecting fish, fish habitat, and the use of fisheries resources by measuring the potential effects of effluent on fish populations, benthic invertebrate (see footnote 1) communities and fish tissue, respectively. The requirement to conduct environmental effects monitoring was built directly into the PPER to provide a science-based feedback loop to help assess whether national discharge limits for pulp and paper mills are protective of the health of aquatic ecosystems.

Environmental effects monitoring under the PPER is carried out in three-year cycles. It consists of a biological monitoring study, sublethal toxicity testing of effluent, and supporting environmental measurements. Mills and OSTFs are required to conduct a biological monitoring study once per cycle and test their effluent for sublethal toxicity twice per year. The biological monitoring study usually consists of a fish survey, benthic invertebrate community survey, and a fish tissue survey that measure concentrations of dioxins and furans. Sublethal toxicity tests study effects of chemicals or their mixtures on an organism below the threshold that would result in its death. Sublethal toxicity testing is to be conducted according to the applicable methods referred to in the PPER using a fish species, an invertebrate species and an algal species.

While the quality of pulp and paper mill effluent has improved over the years, reviews by Environment Canada of the first three EEM studies have produced a number of key findings. Results of sublethal toxicity testing have demonstrated clear improvements in effluent quality from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2. For the most part, no further improvements were evident in Cycle 3, with effluent from some mills still having the potential to elicit sublethal responses. During both Cycles 2 and 3 at mills demonstrating effects, (see footnote 2) fish living in aquatic environments exposed to pulp and paper effluent were generally older, fatter, and had smaller gonads. This is suggestive of nutrient enrichment and metabolic disruption. Studies of benthic invertebrate communities during these cycles were generally indicative of eutrophication (overfertilization of a body of water by nutrients) that ranged from mild to pronounced.

In January 2005, following the third EEM cycle, a multistakeholder group was brought together to work on the Smart Regulation Project on Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Pulp and Paper EEM. (see footnote 3) The group included policy experts from Government, industry, non-government organizations and Aboriginal groups. Its purpose was to review the key scientific findings and operational experience gained to date through implementation of the EEM requirements. The group members worked collaboratively to develop ways to improve the future effectiveness and efficiency of the studies and to address effects where they were identified in the EEM studies of mills. Their report, entitled Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring, contained recommendations to Environment Canada and the pulp and paper industry on how to improve EEM. The proposed amendments reflect many of those recommendations.

The following highlight the major areas of changes to the PPER that are contained in the proposed amendments.

1. Suspending EEM at mills that have ceased production for an extended period of time

An increasing number of mills have, for a variety of reasons, ceased producing pulp or paper products for an extended period of time. EEM studies conducted at these mills would have very limited scientific value in assessing the potential effects of pulp and paper effluents on fish, fish habitat, and the use of fish by humans. Therefore, the proposed amendments include a new provision that excludes mills from having to conduct EEM studies if they have ceased production of pulp or paper products for a period of at least eight consecutive months. If a mill resumes production of pulp and paper products after any eight-month period, the proposed amendments require an EEM study be conducted within three years after the mill has resumed production.

There could be a concern that with this amendment a mill could cease production periodically in order to avoid having to conduct any EEM studies. This risk is negligible as the costs of conducting EEM studies are very small relative to the costs of ceasing production. Furthermore, even in the unlikely event that this were to occur, it would not change the risk to the environment as a mill's effluent quality will continue to be monitored daily to ensure it meets the effluent quality limits prescribed in the PPER.

Sublethal toxicity testing provides valuable information on subtle changes in effluent quality. Under the PPER, mills and OSTFs are required to conduct sublethal toxicity tests of their effluent twice per year using a fish species, an invertebrate species and an algal species. This results in a total of six tests per year or eighteen tests during a three-year cycle.

Environment Canada recognizes the need to allow mills and OSTFs to effectively target their monitoring resources. The proposed amendments streamline the sublethal toxicity testing by removing the requirement to conduct the test using a fish species. This change is proposed because experience has shown that the current test is often not responsive to pulp and paper effluent. The proposed amendments would require mills and OSTFs to continue to conduct tests of the effluent twice per year using an invertebrate species and an algal species, as these tests have provided valuable information on the sublethal effects of pulp and paper effluents. As a result of this change, the number of tests needed for sublethal toxicity would be reduced by two per year or six per three-year cycle.

There could be a concern that this amendment could result in a sublethal toxicity response not being identified due to the elimination of the sublethal toxicity tests using a fish species. This risk is very small since while this test continues to be responsive to other effluents, it is no longer responsive to pulp and paper effluent, even at 100% effluent concentrations. This lack of responsiveness is a result of improvements in effluents quality achieved since the implementation of the PPER. Therefore, even if tests were retained, they are unlikely to provide valuable information.

Under the PPER, biological monitoring usually must be conducted by a mill or OSTF every three years. Monitoring may be reduced to every six years if there have been no statistical differences in the results of every component of the study (fish survey, benthic invertebrate survey, fish tissue survey) for two consecutive cycles. However, if effects are demonstrated for at least one component of the three, then the study must be done for all components within three years, even if no effects are evident for the other two components.

The proposed amendments would allow each component of the biological monitoring study to be assessed individually. Therefore, mills and OSTFs would only have to conduct studies every three years for components that actually demonstrate effects. Components showing no effects over two consecutive cycles would have to be monitored every six years. As a result, EEM would be focused where effects have been identified and minimized where no effects have been observed.

There may be a concern that this amendment could result in an effect not being identified for the component that is monitored every six years. This risk is very small, as the components that would be monitored every six years have previously demonstrated no effects in two consecutive cycles. Furthermore, effluent from the mills and OSTFs will still be monitored daily and must continue to meet the effluent quality limits prescribed in the PPER.

Under the PPER, mills and OSTFs are required to conduct a benthic invertebrate survey in all cases as part of the biological monitoring study. However, this may not be practical in cases where there is rapid dilution of the effluent. In these situations, suitable sample sites are difficult to identify, since effects are usually limited to small areas. Furthermore, sampling in rapid currents may be hazardous to those conducting the sampling. A provision to account for rapid effluent dilution already exists for fish surveys, which are only required if the concentration of the effluent is greater than 1% in the area located within 250 m of the point of deposit of effluent in water.

The proposed amendments include a similar provision relating to conducting benthic invertebrate studies. Under the amended text, mills and OSTFs would only conduct a benthic invertebrate survey as part of their biological monitoring if the concentration of the effluent is greater than 1% in the area located within 100 m of the point of deposit of effluent in water.

There could also be a concern that this amendment could result in some effects not being observed due to these mills being exempt from conducting a benthic invertebrate survey. This represents a small risk as effects in these cases of rapid dilution are difficult to identify and, even if present, would be limited to a very small area.

Experience has demonstrated that the EEM requirements in the PPER are not as efficient as they could be in terms of biological monitoring requirements. Currently, if the two most recent interpretative reports of the biological monitoring studies indicate the same effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, the subsequent biological monitoring study must include a description of one or more additional sampling areas within the exposure area. This is intended to allow the magnitude and geographical extent of the effect to be assessed by the mill or OSTF. However, sufficient information that enables such an assessment is frequently collected during the EEM studies.

Therefore, the proposed amendments would modify the description of the requirements in the PPER respecting the magnitude and geographical extent of the biological study. Rather than requiring additional sampling, mills and OSTFs that have demonstrated the same effect in two consecutive cycles would now be allowed to describe the magnitude and geographical extent of the effect using existing information and then move directly to investigating its cause. This change would help streamline and expedite the EEM studies.

There could be a concern that this amendment could result in the full magnitude and geographical extent of an effect not being determined. Based on operational experience, the information that enables such an assessment is frequently collected during the EEM studies and, as such, does not require a dedicated cycle to collect. The proposed amendment does not represent a significant risk, since mills and OSTFs are still required to provide information on the magnitude and geographical extent of an effect. Therefore, no information will be lost as a result of this proposed amendment.

Under the PPER, if the two most recent interpretative reports of the biological monitoring indicate the same effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, steps must be taken by the mill or OSTF to identify the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect as well as its cause. However, once the mill or OSTF determines the cause, there is no requirement in the current PPER to investigate possible solutions. The proposed amendments would require mills or OSTFs that have identified the cause of the effect to conduct a study to determine the potential solutions that would eliminate or reduce the effect. This information will be used to help assess the adequacy of the PPER.

Changes of an administrative nature are also proposed to update and improve the clarity of the regulatory text. The name of the test methodology for the algal species under paragraph 2(3)(b) of Schedule IV.1 of the PPER would be updated, as would the titles of the federal authorization officers identified in Schedule V and the prescribed persons for notification and reporting of deposits out of the normal course of events identified in Schedule VI.

Additional administrative changes to improve clarity and consistency between the English and French texts are proposed to address recommendations made by the Senate's Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Minor changes would be made to the French version of the regulatory text in paragraphs 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d), as well as 38(5)(d) and subsection 4(2) of Schedule VII. In addition, the wording "à partir de l'émissaire d'effluent visé au paragraphe (1)" would be added to subsection 29(3) of the French version.

Maintaining the status quo has been rejected as a viable option. One of the key purposes of the EEM requirements is to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the PPER and to point to areas where the Regulations can be improved. Evidence from cycles two and three of EEM studies and recommendations by a multistakeholder working group have provided options for improving the EEM requirements under the PPER. Maintaining the status quo would mean the advantages of these improvements would not be realized.

The proposed amendments have been selected as the best available option. They are based on implementation experience and recommendations from a multistakeholder group of policy experts that were asked by the Department to work collaboratively to develop ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the EEM requirements. The proposed amendments provide added clarity and improve the PPER by increasing the efficiency of EEM studies. Monitoring efforts will be focused where effects have been identified and minimized where no effects have been found.

The proposed amendments maintain the same stringent requirements governing the quality of pulp and paper mill effluent. Therefore, no incremental environmental benefits are expected. Nevertheless, making the EEM requirements clearer and more streamlined in the proposed amendments would result in reduced monitoring costs for mills and OSTFs. These cost savings are addressed in the section below.

The proposed amendments are anticipated to result in overall cost savings to the pulp and paper industry since they would streamline EEM monitoring and reporting requirements under the PPER. No changes are being proposed to the allowable discharge limits for mills or OSTFs; therefore, mills would not need additional capital investment as a result of the coming into force of the proposed amendments. It is anticipated that the proposed amendments would result in negligible cost savings for OSTFs. The cost savings anticipated to accrue to the industry are described below in Table 1. Most of these savings can be estimated; however, some are very difficult to quantify. The total incremental cost savings that can be quantified for the affected facilities are estimated to be in the order of $727,000 per year in 2006 dollars.

A mill's operations can vary over time. Between 2003 and 2006, more than 17 mills were closed for at least eight months, and this trend is expected to continue into the medium term. Under the proposed amendments, mills that have ceased production of pulp or paper products for a period of eight consecutive months would be excluded from conducting EEM studies. It is expected that an average of 4 mills would be impacted each year by the closure exemption in the proposed amendments. Each facility that ceases production is expected to save approximately $108,000 over a three-year cycle by not having to conduct biological monitoring and sublethal toxicity testing. (see footnote 4) This averages out to $36,000 per year for each facility; therefore, the total annual cost savings of this amendment for the 4 facilities is estimated to be $144,000.

The proposed amendments would also remove the requirement for each mill to conduct two sublethal toxicity tests per year using a fish species. This is expected to save $3,000 per mill, with 106 mills impacted by these amendments. (see footnote 5) Therefore, the total annual cost savings from this amendment are estimated to be $318,000.

Adjustments are also proposed for the frequency of biological monitoring. Under the proposed amendments, mills showing no effects in a component of biological monitoring for two consecutive cycles can monitor that component every six years instead of three. Based on experience implementing the EEM requirements, it is estimated that 25 mills would be impacted by these amendments, with an average of one component per mill only requiring testing every six years. This would result in an estimated average cost saving per mill of $5,000 per year. For all 25 mills, this would produce a total annual cost saving of $125,000.

The proposed amendments would also exempt mills from conducting a benthic invertebrate survey in situations where rapid currents quickly dilute the effluent. This would result in an estimated cost saving of $30,000 per mill per three-year cycle. Based on previous experience, 14 mills are expected to be impacted, with average annual cost savings per mill estimated at $10,000. Therefore, the total annual average cost savings from this amendment are anticipated to amount to $140,000.

Table 1. Summary of Quantifiable Annual Total Cost Savings of the Proposed Amendments (in 2006 Dollars)

Changes are also being proposed that will likely have cost implications for approximately 20 to 25 mills. However, these are expected to be relatively small, and they are difficult to quantify. The first change relates to reduced sampling requirements in cases where the magnitude and extent of an effect can be identified through existing information. Quantifying the potential cost savings for the impacted mills in that situation is very difficult, as the incremental sampling needs are site-specific. However, only a few additional samples would typically no longer be needed, and these would usually have been taken at the same time and near the same sites as the samples for the rest of the EEM study. Therefore, the cost savings would be expected to be relatively small.

The other change involves investigating potential solutions for observed effects. Under the proposed amendments, if a mill observes an effect in the two most recent interpretative reports, and its magnitude and extent have been determined and a cause identified, the mill would also have to investigate possible solutions to eliminate or reduce the effect. The incremental costs, if any, associated with meeting this requirement are difficult to estimate. However, they are expected to be small, as it is anticipated that the same funds currently used for monitoring (or investigating the cause of an effect) can also be used for investigating solutions. Mills must conduct EEM studies on an ongoing basis under the PPER; therefore, once the cause of an effect is determined, that section of the study can be replaced by a section that investigates solutions.

There would likely be incremental reductions in administration and enforcement costs to the federal government as a result of the changes to the EEM requirements. Field verification of sampling may not be required as frequently. There would be fewer reports from mills that have ceased production, and less time would be needed to review reports from mills where no effects on the environment have been found. However, these cost savings are difficult to quantify and are expected to be small.

The present value of the yearly cost savings of $727,000 is presented in the following table. Various discount rates ranging from 2.5%, 5%, and 10% are used. The net present value (NPV) associated with the discount rate of 5% represents the central estimates, while the NPVs associated with 2.5% and 10% represent the lower and upper bounds of the estimated net cost savings for all of the effected mills.

Thus, over a 20-year period, the proposed amendments are expected to result in net savings of approximately $11.3 million, $9.0 million, and $6.2 million, using discount rates of 2.5%, 5% and 10%, respectively. Both the pulp and paper industry and the federal government are anticipated to benefit from the proposed amendments as the EEM requirements under the PPER are streamlined.

In August 2006, Environment Canada consulted with industry, the provinces, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, federal departments, environmental groups and academia on the proposed amendments. A consultation document describing the proposed amendments to the PPER was mailed out to more than 300 stakeholders including provincial governments, the pulp and paper industry, industry associations, Aboriginal groups, and environmental groups and posted on Environment Canada's "Green Lane" Web site. The Department received written comments from a limited number of stakeholders and has carefully considered the views, comments and concerns expressed in these comments. Overall, these groups mainly supported the proposed changes and provided some specific comments on the proposal.

Industry associations and mills requested that the sublethal toxicity testing requirements be removed from the PPER in their entirety. Environment Canada has considered these views but believes it is premature to remove the entire sublethal toxicity testing component of the EEM program. Sublethal toxicity testing is an important biological tool used for measuring more subtle changes in effluent quality. While sublethal testing using a fish species has not proven to be responsive, tests using an invertebrate species and an algal species continue to provide valuable information. Therefore, Environment Canada maintains its proposal to streamline the sublethal toxicity testing program by removing the requirement to conduct testing using a fish species, but the proposed amendments would continue to require sublethal toxicity testing using an invertebrate species and an algal species.

A province commented that the proposed amendments may contribute to continued duplication of requirements. Since both the federal and provincial governments have the authority to legislate in the area of environmental protection, there is a potential for the occurrence of differences in regulatory requirements and administrative duplication. While there may be sound reasons why regulations differ between jurisdictions, it is important to try to minimize these in cases where they cause unnecessary duplication. With this in mind, the three federal pulp and paper regulations (see footnote 6) currently in force were developed by a federal-provincial working group. The group strove to minimize differences in regulatory requirements across the country. In addition, a number of federal-provincial administrative agreements affecting the pulp and paper industry have been negotiated and put in place to streamline the administration of the federal and provincial regulations. These agreements allow the pulp and paper industry to meet certain regulatory requirements by submitting data to only one level of government.

The proposed amendments would not alter the manner in which the PPER are enforced nor would they alter the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Fish Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act.

Greg Kaminski
Environmental Effects Monitoring
Science Assessment and Integration Division Environment Canada
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-934-5562
Fax: 819-953-0461
Email: Greg.Kaminski@ec.gc.ca

Markes Cormier
Regulatory Analysis and Instrument Choice Division
Environment Canada
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-953-5236
Fax: 819-997-2769
Email: Markes.Cormier@ec.gc.ca

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to paragraphs 36(5)(e) and 38(9)(a) of the Fisheries Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Greg Kaminski, Head of the Environmental Effects Monitoring for Pulp and Paper, Science Assessment and Integration Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3.

1. Paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (see footnote 7) is replaced by the following:

(b) the day referred to in subsection 30(1) after which the interpretative report is required to be submitted to the authorization officer;

2. Q_d and Q_m of paragraph 14(b) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Q_d is the maximum BOD of the BOD matter that may be deposited during a daily period or the maximum quantity of suspended solids that may be deposited during a daily period, expressed in kilograms,

Q_m is the maximum BOD of the BOD matter that may be deposited during a month or the maximum quantity of suspended solids that may be deposited during a month, expressed in kilograms, and

(b) the owner or operator of a mill that commenced operations before November 3, 1971 and since that date treats effluent from the production of dissolving grade sulphite pulp, who seeks an authorization to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, BOD matter or suspended solids in quantities that exceed the maximum quantities authorized by section 14;

4. Q_d and Q_m of paragraphs 19(1)(b) and 20(b) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Q_d is the maximum BOD of the BOD matter that may be deposited during a daily period or the maximum quantity of suspended solids that may be deposited during a daily period, expressed in kilograms,

Q_m is the maximum BOD of the BOD matter that may be deposited during a month or the maximum quantity of suspended solids that may be deposited during a month, expressed in kilograms, and

5. (1) Subsection 29(3) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Malgré les paragraphes (1) et (2), le propriétaire ou l'exploitant de la fabrique ou de l'installation extérieure de traitement qui a rejeté ou immergé l'effluent à partir de l'émissaire d'effluent visé au paragraphe (1) pendant moins de cent vingt jours au cours d'une année civile effectue les essais de toxicité sublétale et présente le rapport connexe une seule fois pour cette année civile.

(2) Section 29 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), the owner or operator of a mill is not required to conduct sublethal toxicity testing and submit a report on the sublethal toxicity tests if the mill has not produced pulp and paper products for at least eight consecutive months and has not resumed production.

6. (1) Paragraphs 30(1)(b) to (d) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(b) the day on which a mill again becomes subject to these Regulations after having not produced pulp and paper products for at least eight consecutive months, which day shall not precede the coming into force of this section; or

(c) the day on which an off-site treatment facility again becomes subject to these Regulations after having not been subject to them for a calendar year, which day shall not precede the coming into force of this section.

(2) Subsections 30(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) Subject to subsections (3), (4) and (5), subsequent biological monitoring studies shall be conducted and interpretative reports shall be submitted to the authorization officer within three years after the day on which the most recent interpretative report was required to be submitted.

(3) The time limit for conducting the subsequent biological monitoring study on fish population referred to in paragraph 3(a) of Schedule IV.1 and for submitting the interpretative report in relation to this study is six years after the day on which the most recent interpretative report was required to be submitted if

(a) according to the two most recent interpretative reports, the study has found no effects on fish population; or

(b) the most recent interpretative report indicates the solutions to eliminate the effect on fish population.

(4) The time limit for conducting the subsequent biological monitoring study on the benthic invertebrate community referred to in paragraph 3(c) of Schedule IV.1 and for submitting the interpretative report in relation to this study is six years after the day on which the most recent interpretative report was required to be submitted if

(a) according to the two most recent interpretative reports, the study has found no effects on benthic invertebrate community; or

(b) the most recent interpretative report indicates the solutions to eliminate the effect on the benthic invertebrate.

(5) The owner or operator of a mill is not required to conduct biological monitoring studies if the mill has not produced pulp and paper products for at least eight consecutive months.

8. Paragraph 38(5)(d) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

d) les résultats de l'essai effectué en application du sousalinéa (3)a)(ii) ou de tout autre essai qui répond aux critères du paragraphe (4);

9. (1) Subsection 2(1) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

2. (1) Sublethal toxicity testing shall be conducted by following the applicable methods referred to in subsections (2) and (3) and by recording the results for an invertebrate species and an algal species.

(3) The portion of paragraph 2(3)(b) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations before subparagraph (ii) is replaced by the following:

(b) in the case of algal species, one of the following test methodologies, as applicable, namely,

(i) Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Third Edition) (Reference Method EPA/821/R/ 02–014), October 2002, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or

10. (1) Paragraph 3(a) of Schedule IV.1 to the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

a) d'une étude sur la population de poissons dans le cas où la concentration de l'effluent dans la zone exposée est supérieure à 1 % en deçà de 250 m d'un point d'immersion de l'effluent;

(2) Paragraph 3(c) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(c) a study respecting the benthic invertebrate community, if the concentration of effluent in the exposure area is greater than 1% in the area located within 100 m of a point of deposit of the effluent in water.

11. (1) The portion of subsection 4(1) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

4. (1) At least six months before the commencement of sampling for biological monitoring studies, a study design shall be submitted to the authorization officer that, subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), consists of

(2) The portion of paragraph 4(1)(d) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(d) if a study respecting the benthic invertebrate community is required under paragraph 3(c), a description of how the study will be conducted, that includes

(3) Paragraph 4(1)(e) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Paragraph 4(1)(h) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(h) if the two most recent interpretative reports indicate the same effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, a description of the magnitude and geographical extent of the effect.

(5) Subsection 4(2) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) If the most recent interpretative report indicates the magnitude and geographical extent of an effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, or that the cause of the effect has not been identified, the study design shall consist of the following:

(b) a detailed description of field and laboratory studies that will be used to determine the cause of the effect.

(3) If the most recent interpretative report indicates the cause of the effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, or that the solution has not been identified, the study design shall consist of a detailed description of the studies that will be used to determine the possible solutions to eliminate the effect.

(4) If the most recent interpretative report indicates the solutions to eliminate the effect, the study design shall consist of the information referred to in subsection (1).

12. Paragraph 5(1)(a) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(a) a description of the manner in which the effluent mixes within the exposure area, including an estimate of the concentration of effluent in water at 100 m and 250 m, respectively, from each point of deposit of the effluent in water;

13. (1) The portion of subsection 12(1) of Schedule IV.1 to the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

12. (1) After biological monitoring studies are conducted in accordance with sections 8 to 10, an interpretative report shall be prepared that, subject to subsections (2) and (2.1), contains the following information:

(2) Subsection 12(3) of Schedule IV.I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2.1) If a study design is submitted under subsection 4(3), the interpretative report shall consist of only the studies that were used to identify possible solutions to eliminate the effect and the results of those solutions and, if the solution was not identified, an explanation of why and a description of any steps that need to be taken in the next study to identify the solutions.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f), if a study on the fish population, fish tissue or the benthic invertebrate community is not required to be conducted under these Regulations, the effluent is considered to have no effect on the fish population, fish tissue or the benthic invertebrate community, respectively.

14. Schedules V and VI to the Regulations are replaced by the Schedules V and VI set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

15. Subsection 4(2) of Schedule VII to the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Aux fins de vérification du calibrage de la jauge CTD à l'égard de salinité, les spécifications de l'instrument devraient être appliquées.

16. The French version of the Regulations is amended by replacing the words "le détail" with the words "la mention" wherever they occur in the following provisions:

17. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

Benthic invertebrates are organisms without backbones that live on the bottom of a water body or in the sediment, such as clams or insect larvae. Measures of the benthic invertebrate communities, such as the abundance, diversity, and species composition, can be used as indicators of changing environmental conditions.

Effect means a statistical difference between fish or benthic invertebrate data from a study conducted in an area exposed to pulp and paper effluent and an area not exposed to pulp and paper effluent.

Environment Canada. 2005. Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring: A Smart Regulations Opportunity, Ottawa, Ontario (www.ec.gc.ca/eem/pdf_publications/
english/ EEM_ Smart_Regulation.pdf)

Biological monitoring costs are assumed to be $30,000 per each component (fish, fish tissue and benthic), while sublethal toxicity tests are assumed to cost $1,500 for fish and $750 each for algal species and invertebrates.

There are currently 110 mills and OSTFs; however, cost savings for sublethal fish testing at 4 facilities are already accounted for under the estimate of savings from ceased production.

The three federal regulations are (i) the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations made under the Fisheries Act; (ii) the Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999); and (iii) the Pulp and Paper Mill Defoamer and Wood Chip Regulations made under CEPA 1999.