Canada Gazette

Français		Contact us		Help		Search		Canada Site

Home		About us		History		FAQ		Site Map

Notice

Vol. 138, No. 10 — May 19, 2004

Registration
SOR/2004-109 4 May, 2004

FISHERIES ACT

Regulations Amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations

P.C. 2004-540 4 May, 2004

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to subsections 34(2), 36(5), 37(3) and 38(9) of the Fisheries Act, hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) The definitions "B_o", "B_r", "D", "Q_d", "Q_m", "S_o" and "transitional authorization" in section 2 of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (see footnote a) are repealed.

(2) The definitions "finished product", "mill", "off-site treatment facility", "operator", "paper product" and "treat" in section 2 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

"finished product" means pulp or a paper product that has completed the production process at a mill; (produit fini)

"mill" means

and includes any facility that is owned or operated by the owner of any of the factories referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) and that treats effluent; (fabrique)

"off-site treatment facility" means a facility that treats effluent from a mill if the facility is neither owned nor operated by the owner of a mill; (installation extérieure de traitement)

"operator" means the person who operates, has control or custody of or is in charge of a mill or an off-site treatment facility; (exploitant)

"paper product" means paper, coated paper, paperboard, hardboard, boxboard, linerboard, insulating board, building board, corrugating medium, tissue, moulded cellulose product and any other product directly derived from pulp, but does not include viscose, rayon, cellophane or any other cellulose derivative, or medium density fiberboard as defined in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard A208.2-2002, published on May 13, 2002; (produit de papier)

"treat", in respect of effluent, means to subject the effluent to physical, chemical or biological action, other than dilution, in order to reduce or eliminate deleterious substances. (traiter)

(3) Paragraph (b) of the definition "effluent" in section 2 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

effluent

(4) Section 2 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

"daily period", in respect of a mill or an off-site treatment facility, means

période de vingt-quatre heures

"outfall structure" means a conduit or other structure through which effluent is conveyed from a mill or an off-site treatment facility to a location where it is deposited in water frequented by fish, or in any place from which it may enter such water, or a conduit or other structure through which effluent is conveyed from a mill to an off-site treatment facility; (émissaire d'effluent)

"Port Alberni Mill" means the mill located in Port Alberni, British Columbia, that is owned by Norske Skog Canada Limited, its successors or assigns; (fabrique de Port Alberni)

"Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition" means Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Rainbow Trout (EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition), December 2000, published by the federal Department of the Environment, as amended from time to time; (méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13 Deuxième édition)

"Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 Second Edition" means Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Daphnia magna (EPS 1/RM/14 Second Edition), December 2000, published by the federal Department of the Environment, as amended from time to time; (méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14 Deuxième édition)

2. The heading before section 3 and sections 3 to 6 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Prescribed Deleterious Substances

3. For the purpose of the definition "deleterious substance" in subsection 34(1) of the Act, the following classes of substances from a mill or an off-site treatment facility are prescribed as deleterious substances:

(a) acutely lethal effluent;

(b) BOD matter; and

Ministerial Orders

4. For the purpose of subsection 37(2) of the Act and in respect of mills or off-site treatment facilities, the Minister or a person designated by the Minister may issue an order under that subsection if the Minister or the person has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under subsection 40(1) or (2) of the Act is being or is likely to be committed.

PART 1

MILLS AND OFF-SITE
TREATMENT FACILITIES

Application

5. (1) This Part applies in respect of all mills except the Port Alberni Mill.

(2) This Part also applies in respect of an off-site treatment facility at which, during the preceding calendar year,

(a) 20% or more of the average daily BOD of the BOD matter in the effluent that was treated originated from one or more mills; or

(b) 5 000 kg or more of the average daily BOD of the BOD matter in the effluent that was treated originated from a single mill.

(3) If, during the calendar year referred to in subsection (2), the average daily BOD of the BOD matter in the effluent that originated from a single mill did not exceed the product of 7.5 multiplied by the mill's reference production rate, the BOD of that BOD matter is not to be included in the calculation of BOD under subsection (2).

Authority to Deposit

6. (1) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of a mill may deposit, or permit the deposit of, BOD matter and suspended solids in any water or place other than a place referred to in subsection (3) or (4) if

(a) the BOD of the BOD matter or the quantity of suspended solids, as the case may be, does not exceed the maximum quantities authorized by section 14; or

(b) the deposit is made in accordance with an authorization to exceed the maximum quantities authorized by section 14.

(2) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of an off-site treatment facility may deposit, or permit the deposit of, BOD matter and suspended solids in any water or place if the deposit is made in accordance with an authorization.

(3) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of a mill may deposit, or permit the deposit of, any concentration of acutely lethal effluent, any BOD matter and any quantity of suspended solids into an off-site treatment facility, whether or not the facility is subject to these Regulations.

(4) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of a factory that produces pulp or paper products may deposit, or permit the deposit of, any concentration of acutely lethal effluent, any BOD matter and any quantity of suspended solids into

(a) a treatment facility that is owned or operated by the owner of the factory; or

(b) if the factory is part of a complex, the common treatment facility for the factories that are part of the complex.

(5) The authority to deposit BOD matter and suspended solids conferred by subsections (1) and (2) does not confer any authority to deposit acutely lethal effluent.

3. The heading before section 7 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Conditions Governing Authority to Deposit

4. (1) Subsection 7(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

7. (1) The authority of the owner or operator of a mill or an off-site treatment facility under subsections 6(1) and (2) is conditional on the operator

(a) installing, maintaining and calibrating monitoring equipment, and keeping records of that equipment, in accordance with section 8;

(b) monitoring effluent in accordance with Schedule II and submitting to the authorization officer a monthly report of the monitoring results and production information in accordance with subsections 9(1) and (3);

(c) notifying an inspector, without delay, of any result of a test conducted in accordance with Schedule II and of any result of any additional test that was conducted on samples collected in accordance with the procedures specified in that Schedule, other than in the case of a deposit out of the normal course of events, that indicates a failure or non-compliance with these Regulations and reporting the test results in writing to the inspector within 10 days after the notification;

(d) submitting the identifying information to the authorization officer in accordance with subsections 10(1), (2) and (3);

(e) preparing and updating annually a remedial plan describing the measures to be taken by the operator to eliminate all unauthorized deposits of deleterious substances in the case where effluent fails an acute lethality test conducted in accordance with Schedule II;

(f) preparing an emergency response plan in accordance with section 11 and making it readily available on site to persons who are to implement the plan;

(g) in the case of a mill, providing the authorization officer, in accordance with section 12, with

(h) in the case of a mill that treats, in addition to its own effluent, waste water from sources other than a mill, if an authorization has been issued to the owner or operator under subsection 16(1), submitting the values of B_o and S_o and the supporting data to the authorization officer in accordance with section 19;

(i) in the case of an off-site treatment facility, submitting the value of A and the supporting data to the authorization officer in accordance with section 21;

(j) submitting the information on outfall structures to the authorization officer in accordance with section 27, and depositing effluent only through those outfall structures;

(k) complying with the requirements for environmental effects monitoring studies set out in sections 28 to 31; and

(l) keeping available for inspection

(2) The portion of subsection 7(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) The authority of the owner or operator of a mill under subsection 6(1) is also conditional on the operator

(3) Subsections 7(3) and (4) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) The authority of the owner or operator of a mill under subsection 6(3) is conditional on the operator

(a) monitoring effluent in accordance with Schedule II and submitting to the authorization officer an annual report, or a series of partial reports covering each calendar year, of the monitoring results and production information in accordance with subsections 9(2) and (3);

(b) submitting the identifying information to the authorization officer in accordance with subsections 10(1.1) to (3); and

(c) preparing an emergency response plan in accordance with section 11, making it readily available on site to persons who are to implement the plan and keeping the plan and every update available for inspection for at least five years.

(4) The authority of the owner of a mill or an off-site treatment facility under section 6 is, if the owner is not the same person as the operator, also conditional on the owner exercising all due diligence to ensure that the operator meets the applicable conditions specified in this section.

5. Subsection 8(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

8. (1) The monitoring equipment referred to in paragraph 7(1)(a) is equipment that is installed, maintained and calibrated so that it is capable of monitoring effluent in accordance with Schedule II, and includes the following:

(a) equipment that is capable of taking duplicate samples of effluent from each outfall structure, or a sufficient volume of effluent to obtain split samples, for the purpose of conducting BOD tests and suspended solids tests; and

(b) equipment that permits the determination of the volume of effluent that is deposited through each outfall structure using a method that accords with generally accepted engineering principles, such as a method described in the standards for the measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits and for the measurement of liquid flow in open channels, published by the International Organization for Standardization under International Classification for standards numbers 17.120.10 and 17.120.20, respectively, as amended from time to time.

6. Section 9 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

9. (1) Each monthly report of monitoring results and production information referred to in paragraph 7(1)(b) shall contain the following information and shall be submitted to the authorization officer no later than 30 days after the end of the month to which the report relates:

(a) the data required by section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition and section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 Second Edition for all tests that were conducted in accordance with Schedule II during the month, including any additional tests that were conducted on samples collected in accordance with the procedures specified in that Schedule;

(b) the results of all BOD tests and suspended solids tests that were conducted in accordance with Schedule II during the month, including any additional tests that were conducted on samples collected in accordance with the procedures specified in that Schedule;

(c) the average daily BOD of the BOD matter that was deposited during the month and the average daily quantity of suspended solids that was deposited during the month, calculated on the basis of the results referred to in paragraph (b);

(d) the total BOD of the BOD matter that was deposited during the month and the total quantity of suspended solids that was deposited during the month, calculated by multiplying the number of days in the month during which effluent was deposited by the applicable daily average for that month referred to in paragraph (c);

(e) the volume of effluent that was deposited during each daily period in the month;

(f) in the case of a mill at which, under the authority of an authorization, treated effluent is combined with other effluent before being deposited, the volume of each effluent that is to be treated and the volume of the treated effluent before it is combined, for any daily period during which samples of effluent are collected in accordance with section 15 of Schedule II; and

(g) in the case of a mill, the quantity of finished product, measured in accordance with subsection 12(3), that was produced during each daily period that the mill was in operation during the month.

(2) Each annual report, or series of partial reports covering a calendar year, of monitoring results and production information referred to in paragraph 7(3)(a) shall contain the following information and shall be submitted to the authorization officer no later than January 31 following the calendar year to which the report or series of partial reports relates:

(a) the results of all BOD tests that were conducted in accordance with Schedule II during the calendar year, including any additional tests that were conducted on samples collected in accordance with the procedures specified in that Schedule;

(b) the volume of effluent that was deposited during each daily period in the calendar year that a BOD test was conducted; and

(c) the quantity of finished product, measured in accordance with subsection 12(3), that was produced during each daily period in the calendar year that the mill was in operation.

(3) Each report referred to in this section shall be submitted electronically in the format provided by the federal Department of the Environment, but the report shall be submitted in writing if

(a) no such format has been provided; or

(b) it is, owing to circumstances beyond the operator's control, impracticable to submit the report electronically in the format provided.

7. The heading before section 10 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Identifying Information

8. (1) Subsections 10(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

10. (1) The identifying information referred to in paragraph 7(1)(d) is as follows:

(a) the name and address of both the owner and the operator of the mill or the off-site treatment facility, as the case may be;

(b) the day referred to in paragraphs 30(1)(a) to (d) after which the interpretive report is required to be submitted to the authorization officer;

(c) in the case of a mill that treats, in addition to its own effluent, waste water from sources other than a mill, the name and address of both the owner and the operator of each of those sources; and

(d) in the case of an off-site treatment facility that treats industrial waste water from sources other than a mill, the name and address of both the owner and the operator of each of those sources.

(1.1) The identifying information referred to in paragraph 7(3)(b) is as follows:

(a) the name and address of both the owner and the operator of the mill; and

(b) the name and address of both the owner and the operator of the off-site treatment facility into which effluent is deposited.

(2) The identifying information shall be submitted no later than

(a) 30 days after the day on which this subsection comes into force; or

(b) the day on which the mill or off-site treatment facility becomes subject to these Regulations, if that day is after the period referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) Subsection 10(3) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Any change in the information previously submitted shall be submitted no later than 90 days after the change occurs.

9. Section 11 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

11. (1) The emergency response plan referred to in paragraphs 7(1)(f) and (3)(c) shall describe the measures to be taken to prevent any deposit of a deleterious substance out of the normal course of events or to mitigate the effects of such a deposit. The plan shall include the following elements:

(a) the identification of any deposit out of the normal course of events that can reasonably be expected to occur at the mill or off-site treatment facility and that can reasonably be expected to result in damage or danger to fish habitat or fish or the use by man of fish, and the identification of the damage or danger;

(b) a description of the measures to be used to prevent, prepare for and respond to a deposit identified under paragraph (a);

(c) a list of the individuals who are to implement the plan in the event of a deposit out of the normal course of events, and a description of their roles and responsibilities;

(d) the identification of the emergency response training required for each of the individuals listed under paragraph (c);

(e) a list of the emergency response equipment included as part of the plan, and the equipment's location; and

(f) alerting and notification procedures including the measures to be taken to notify members of the public who may be adversely affected by a deposit identified under paragraph (a).

(2) The emergency response plan shall be prepared no later than

(a) 30 days after the day on which this subsection comes into force; or

(b) the day on which the mill or off-site treatment facility becomes subject to these Regulations, if that day is after the period referred to in paragraph (a).

(3) An updated emergency response plan shall be prepared no later than January 31 of each calendar year.

(4) If a mill or an off-site treatment facility has not been subject to the requirements of these Regulations for more than one year, a new emergency response plan shall be prepared on the day on which the mill or the facility again becomes subject to these Regulations.

10. Subsections 12(3) and (4) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) The production of finished product shall be measured in tonnes, taking into account the following:

(a) in the case of pulp,

(b) in the case of a paper product, the weight of the paper product shall be its weight after it has been machine dried.

(4) The reference production rates referred to in paragraph 7(1)(g) shall be submitted for each calendar year to the authorization officer no later than January 31 of the following year.

11. (1) Subsections 13(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) If the 90th percentile of the daily production of finished product at a mill has increased or is expected to increase by more than 25%, in respect of any period of 100 consecutive days, from the reference production rate of the mill, the operator may apply to the authorization officer for an interim reference production rate.

(3) If the 90th percentile of the daily production of finished product at a mill has decreased or is expected to decrease by more than 25%, in respect of any period of 100 consecutive days, from the reference production rate of the mill, the operator shall apply to the authorization officer for an interim reference production rate no later than 31 days after the decrease occurs or after becoming aware of the expected decrease, as the case may be.

(2) Subsection 13(5) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5) If, in accordance with subsection (1), (2) or (3), the authorization officer assigns an interim reference production rate to a mill to be used for the purposes of section 14 instead of the reference production rate, the interim reference production rate shall be based on an estimation of what the 90th percentile of the daily production would be at that mill. The estimation shall be based on the information submitted in accordance with subsection (4).

12. Sections 14 to 16 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

14. Unless an authorization has been issued authorizing the deposit of BOD matter or suspended solids, as the case may be, the maximum BOD of the BOD matter that may be deposited from a mill and the maximum quantities of suspended solids that may be deposited from a mill are as follows:

(a) in respect of a daily period, the amounts determined using the formula

Q_d = F × 2.5 × RPR

and

(b) in respect of a month, the amounts determined using the formula

Q_m = F × D × 1.5 × RPR

where

D is the number of calendar days in the month,

F is equal to a factor of 5 for BOD and 7.5 for suspended solids, expressed in kilograms per tonne of finished product,

Q_dis 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, as the case may be, expressed in kilograms,

Q_mis 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, as the case may be, expressed in kilograms, and

RPR is the reference production rate of the mill for all finished product, expressed in tonnes per day.

Authorizations

15. (1) An application for an authorization may be made by one or more of

(a) the owner or operator of a mill that treats, in addition to its own effluent, waste water from sources other than a mill and that commenced operations before November 3, 1971, 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;

(b) the owner or operator of a mill that treats effluent from the production of dissolving grade sulphite pulp and that commenced operations before November 3, 1971, 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;

(c) the owner or operator of an off-site treatment facility who seeks an authorization to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, BOD matter or suspended solids; or

(d) the owner or operator of a mill who seeks an authorization to combine treated effluent with other effluent before the treated effluent is deposited.

(2) An application for an authorization shall contain the information specified in Schedule III and shall be submitted to the authorization officer.

16. (1) The authorization officer may issue to the owner or operator of a mill referred to in paragraph 15(1)(a) an authorization to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, BOD matter and suspended solids in quantities that exceed the maximum quantities authorized by section 14, if the quantities so authorized are the lowest that can be achieved and do not exceed the maximum quantities that may be authorized under section 19.

(2) The authorization officer may issue to the owner or operator of a mill referred to in paragraph 15(1)(b) an authorization to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, BOD matter and suspended solids in quantities that exceed the maximum quantities authorized by section 14, if the quantities so authorized are the lowest that can be achieved and do not exceed the maximum quantities that may be authorized under section 20.

(3) An authorization may not be issued under subsection (1) or (2) unless the owner or operator of the mill has taken all applicable preventative measures at the production stage to reduce the BOD of all BOD matter and the quantity of suspended solids in the effluent.

(4) The authorization officer may issue to the owner or operator of an off-site treatment facility referred to in paragraph 15(1)(c) an authorization to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, BOD matter and suspended solids, if the quantities so authorized are the lowest that can be achieved and do not exceed the maximum quantities that may be authorized under section 21.

13. The portion of subsection 17(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

17. (1) The authorization officer may issue to the owner or operator of a mill referred to in paragraph 15(1)(d) an authorization to combine treated effluent with other effluent before the treated effluent is deposited if

14. (1) Subsections 18(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

18. (1) No authorization shall be issued under section 16 or 17 if the authorization officer has data indicating that the quantity of the deleterious substances to be authorized has had or will have a significant effect on fish, fish habitat or the use by man of fish that is more adverse than if the quantities were the maximum quantities authorized under section 14.

(2) An authorization shall be issued in the form set out in Schedule IV.

(2) Paragraph 18(3)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(a) new data indicate that the quantity of the substances, authorized by the authorization officer, has had or will have a significant effect on fish, fish habitat or the use by man of fish that is more adverse than if the quantities were the maximum quantities authorized under section 14;

(3) Subsection 18(3) of the Regulations is amended by striking out the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b) and by replacing paragraph (c) with the following:

(c) an owner or operator has not taken all applicable preventative measures at the production stage to reduce the BOD of the BOD matter, the quantity of suspended solids or the lethality in respect of the effluent to be treated; or

(d) there is a change in any information provided under section 3, 4 or 5 of Schedule III.

(4) Subsection 18(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Before issuing, amending or withdrawing an authorization, the authorization officer shall consult with officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, if the authorization officer is a provincial official, with officials in the federal Department of the Environment. The authorization officer may also consult with any other person, body or group that has an interest in the authorization.

15. Sections 19 to 26 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

19. (1) The maximum BOD of the BOD matter and the maximum quantities of suspended solids that the owner or operator of a mill referred to in paragraph 15(1)(a) may be authorized to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, under an authorization are as follows:

(a) in respect of a daily period, the amounts determined using the formula

Q_d = (F × 2.5 × RPR) + [0.375 × (B_o or S_o)]

and

(b) in respect of a month, the amounts determined using the formula

Q_m = (F × D × 1.5 × RPR) + [0.225 × (B_o or S_o) × D]

where

B_o is the average daily BOD of the BOD matter in the waste water from sources other than a mill before it is treated by the mill, calculated for the preceding calendar year and expressed in kilograms,

D is the number of calendar days in the month,

F is equal to a factor of 5 for BOD and 7.5 for suspended solids, expressed in kilograms per tonne of finished product,

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, as the case may be, expressed in kilograms,

RPR is the reference production rate of the mill for all finished product, expressed in tonnes per day, and

S_o is the average daily quantity of suspended solids in the waste water from sources other than a mill before it is treated by the mill, calculated for the preceding calendar year and expressed in kilograms.

(2) The values of B_o and S_o and the supporting data referred to in paragraph 7(1)(h) for each calendar year shall be submitted to the authorization officer no later than January 31 of the following calendar year.

(3) If there are insufficient data on which to calculate the values of B_o and S_o, an estimate of those values may be made based on the data that are available.

20. The maximum BOD of the BOD matter and the maximum quantities of suspended solids that the owner or operator of a mill referred to in paragraph 15(1)(b) may be authorized to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, under an authorization are as follows:

(a) in respect of a daily period, the amounts determined using the formula

Q_d = (F₁ × 2.5 × RPR₁) + (F₂ × 2.5 × RPR₂)

and

(b) in respect of a month, the amounts determined using the formula

Q_m = (F₁ × D × 1.5 × RPR₁) + (F₂ × D × 1.5 × RPR₂)

where

D is the number of calendar days in the month,

F₁ is equal to a factor of 5 for BOD and 7.5 for suspended solids, expressed in kilograms per tonne of finished product other than dissolving grade sulphite pulp,

F₂ is equal to a factor of 18 for BOD and 25 for suspended solids, expressed in kilograms per tonne of dissolving grade sulphite pulp,

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, as the case may be, 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, as the case may be, expressed in kilograms,

RPR₁ is the reference production rate of the mill for all finished product other than dissolving grade sulphite pulp, expressed in tonnes per day, and

RPR₂ is the reference production rate of the mill for dissolving grade sulphite pulp, expressed in tonnes per day.

21. (1) The maximum BOD of the BOD matter that the owner or operator of an off-site treatment facility referred to in paragraph 15(1)(c) may be authorized to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, under an authorization is as follows:

(a) in respect of a daily period, the amount determined using the formula

Q_d = 0.375 × A

and

(b) in respect of a month, the amount determined using the formula

Q_m = 0.225 × A × D

where

A is the average daily BOD of the BOD matter in the effluent before it is treated by the off-site treatment facility, calculated for the preceding calendar year and expressed in kilograms,

D is the number of calendar days in the month,

Q_d is the maximum BOD of the BOD matter that may be deposited during a daily period, expressed in kilograms, and

Q_m is the maximum BOD of the BOD matter that may be deposited during a month, expressed in kilograms.

(2) The maximum quantities of suspended solids that the owner or operator of an off-site treatment facility referred to in paragraph 15(1)(c) may be authorized to deposit under an authorization are as follows:

(a) in respect of a daily period, the amount determined using the formula

Q_d = 0.563 × A

and

(b) in respect of a month, the amount determined using the formula

Q_m = 0.338 × A × D

where

A is the average daily BOD of the BOD matter in the effluent before it is treated by the off-site treatment facility, calculated for the preceding calendar year and expressed in kilograms,

D is the number of calendar days in the month,

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

Q_m is the maximum quantity of suspended solids that may be deposited during a month, expressed in kilograms.

(3) The value of A and the supporting data referred to in paragraph 7(1)(i) for each calendar year shall be submitted to the authorization officer no later than January 31 of the following calendar year.

(4) If there are insufficient data on which to calculate the value of A, an estimate of that value may be made based on the data that are available.

16. The heading before section 27 of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Information on Outfall Structures

17. (1) The portion of subsection 27(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

27. (1) The information on outfall structures required by paragraph 7(1)(j) is as follows:

(2) Paragraph 27(1)(a) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(a) a general description of each outfall structure, together with its plans and specifications; and

(3) Paragraph 27(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(b) a description of the portion of each outfall structure situated at the point at which effluent is deposited, as it pertains to the dispersion of deleterious substances, and more particularly a description of the design, location and maintenance of that portion.

(4) Subsections 27(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) The information on each outfall structure shall be submitted no later than

(a) 30 days after the day on which this subsection comes into force; or

(b) the day on which the mill or off-site treatment facility becomes subject to these Regulations, if that day is after the period referred to in paragraph (a).

(3) The information on any proposed change to an outfall structure shall be submitted at least 90 days before the change is made.

18. Sections 28 to 39 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Environmental Effects Monitoring Studies

28. (1) The owner or operator of a mill or an off-site treatment facility shall conduct environmental effects monitoring studies of the potential effects of effluent on the fish population, on fish tissue and on the benthic invertebrate community.

(2) Environmental effects monitoring studies consist of the sublethal toxicity testing referred to in section 29 and the biological monitoring studies referred to in section 30.

(3) The studies shall be performed and their results recorded, interpreted and reported in accordance with generally accepted standards of good scientific practice at the time that the studies are performed.

(4) The owner or operator shall submit to the authorization officer reports of the results of the studies in writing and the supporting data in the electronic format provided by the federal Department of the Environment.

29. (1) Sublethal toxicity testing shall be conducted in accordance with section 2 of Schedule IV.1, twice in each calendar year, on the aliquots of effluent samples collected in accordance with section 3 of Schedule II from the outfall structure that has potentially the most adverse environmental impact.

(2) A report on the sublethal toxicity tests shall be prepared twice in each calendar year and submitted to the authorization officer within three months after the completion of the tests.

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the owner or operator of a mill or an off-site treatment facility that deposits effluent from the outfall structure referred to in subsection (1) on fewer than 120 days in any calendar year is required to conduct and submit the report on the sublethal toxicity tests only once in respect of that calendar year.

30. (1) Biological monitoring studies shall be conducted and an interpretive report shall be submitted to the authorization officer, in accordance with sections 3 to 12 of Schedule IV.1, within three years, after

(a) the day on which a mill or an off-site treatment facility first becomes subject to these Regulations, which day shall not precede the coming into force of this section;

(b) the day on which a mill or an off-site treatment facility again becomes subject to these Regulations, after having not been subject to them for at least three consecutive years, which day shall not precede the coming into force of this section;

(c) April 1, 2004, if, on the coming into force of this section, the owner or operator of a mill or an off-site treatment facility was subject to the requirements of sections 28 to 32, 34 and 35 of these Regulations, as they read before that day and the owner or operator was required to submit an interpretive report no later than April 1, 2004; or

(d) the day on which the owner or operator of a mill or an off-site treatment facility is required to submit an interpretive report in accordance with section 31.

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

(3) The time limit for conducting subsequent biological monitoring studies and submitting an interpretive report is six years after the day on which the most recent report was required to be submitted, if the two most recent interpretive reports showed no effect on the fish population, on fish tissue and on the benthic invertebrate community as those expressions are defined in section 1 of Schedule IV.1.

Transitional

31. The owner or operator of a mill or an off-site treatment facility who on the coming into force of this section was subject to the requirements of sections 28 to 32, 34 and 35 of these Regulations, as they read before that day, shall complete any studies and submit an interpretive report and supporting data in accordance with the requirements and within the periods set out in those sections, unless the interpretative report was to be submitted no later than April 1, 2004.

Reports of Deposits out of the Normal Course of Events

32. (1) For the purpose of subsection 38(4) of the Act, the following authorities are prescribed:

(a) the persons providing 24-hour emergency telephone service provided by the Branch or Regional Office set out in column II of Schedule VI for the province, set out in column I, where the mill or the off-site treatment facility is located; and

(b) the person occupying the position set out in column III of that Schedule, for the province, set out in column I, where the mill or the off-site treatment facility is located.

(2) Any person required by subsection 38(4) of the Act to report the occurrence of a deposit of a deleterious substance out of the normal course of events, or a serious and imminent danger of that occurrence, shall immediately notify an inspector or an authority referred to in paragraph (1)(a) of the occurrence or danger and shall, if a deposit has occurred, submit a written report to an inspector or the authority referred to in paragraph (1)(b) as soon as possible in the circumstances and, in any event, no later than 30 days after the deposit occurred.

(3) For the purpose of evaluating the effect of a deposit out of the normal course of events that has occurred from an outfall structure, the operator shall, in accordance with subsections 2(1) and (2) of Schedule II and as soon as possible in the circumstances,

(a) collect a grab sample from the outfall structure through which the deposit occurred and subject the sample to

(b) subject another sample, collected from the outfall structure through which the deposit occurred in accordance with section 6 of Schedule II, to a BOD test.

(4) The collecting and testing of a sample under subsection (3) are not required if, for the purpose of monitoring effluent under paragraph 7(1)(b), the same sample has already been collected and the same test has been conducted whose result permits the determination of the effect of the deposit out of the normal course of events.

(5) The written report shall contain the following information:

(a) the BOD of the BOD matter that was deposited, and the quantity of suspended solids that was deposited, that exceeded the maximum respective quantities authorized by section 14 or under an authorization or, if either of them cannot be determined, an estimate of that BOD or of that quantity of suspended solids, or both, along with information and supporting data on how the estimate was derived;

(b) an estimate of the BOD of the BOD matter that was deposited during any period in which the monitoring equipment was malfunctioning, and of the quantity of suspended solids that was deposited during that period, along with information and supporting data on how the estimate was derived;

(c) the volume or, if the volume cannot be determined, an estimate of the volume of acutely lethal effluent that was deposited and the results of the test that was conducted pursuant to subparagraph (3)(a)(i) or any test that meets the criteria of subsection (4);

(d) the results of the test that was conducted pursuant to subparagraph (3)(a)(ii) or any test that meets the criteria of subsection (4);

(e) the quantity of any deleterious substance that was deposited in any way other than through an outfall structure in respect of which a plan had been provided in accordance with paragraph 27(1)(a) or, if the quantity cannot be determined, an estimate of the quantity along with information and supporting data on how the estimate was derived;

(f) the quantity of any deleterious substance that was deposited through an outfall structure through which untreated effluent is deposited or, if the quantity cannot be determined, an estimate of the quantity along with information and supporting data on how the estimate was derived; and

(g) the circumstances of the deposit, the measures that were taken to mitigate the effects of the deposit and, if the emergency response plan prepared in accordance with section 11 was implemented, details concerning its implementation.

PART 2

PORT ALBERNI MILL

Application

33. This Part applies in respect of the Port Alberni Mill.

Authority to Deposit

34. (1) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of the mill may deposit, or permit the deposit of, BOD matter in Alberni Inlet if the BOD of the BOD matter does not exceed

(a) during any daily period, 5 641 kg; and

(b) during any month, an average of 3 385 kg per daily period.

(2) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of the mill may deposit, or permit the deposit of, suspended solids in Alberni Inlet if the quantity of suspended solids does not exceed

(a) during any daily period, 10 154 kg; and

(b) during any month, an average of 6 092 kg per daily period.

(3) The authority to deposit BOD matter and suspended solids conferred by subsections (1) and (2) does not confer any authority to deposit acutely lethal effluent.

(4) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of the mill may deposit, or permit the deposit of, any concentration of acutely lethal effluent, any BOD matter and any quantity of suspended solids into

(a) a treatment facility that is owned or operated by the owner of the factory; or

(b) if the factory is part of a complex, the common treatment facility for the factories that are part of the complex.

Conditions Governing Authority to Deposit

35. (1) The authority of the owner or operator of the mill under section 34 is conditional on the operator

(a) installing, maintaining and calibrating monitoring equipment, and keeping records of that equipment, in accordance with section 8;

(c) notifying an inspector, without delay, of any result of a test conducted in accordance with Schedule II and of any result of any additional test that was conducted on samples collected in accordance with the procedures specified in that Schedule, other than in the case of a deposit out of the normal course of events, that indicates a failure or non-compliance with these Regulations, and reporting the test results in writing to the inspector within 10 days after the notification;

(d) submitting the identifying information to the authorization officer in accordance with paragraph 10(1)(a) and subsections 10(2) and (3);

(f) conducting a dissolved oxygen monitoring program in accordance with Schedule VII and submitting to the authorization officer data obtained from the program and reports in accordance with section 36;

(g) preparing an emergency response plan in accordance with section 11 and making it readily available on site to persons who are to implement the plan;

(h) submitting the information on outfall structures to the authorization officer in accordance with section 37, and depositing effluent only through those outfall structures;

(i) complying with the requirements for environmental effects monitoring studies set out in sections 28 and 29 and conducting biological monitoring studies and submitting an interpretive report to the authorization officer, in accordance with sections 3 to 12 of Schedule IV.1, no later than April 1, 2007, and, with respect to subsequent biological monitoring studies and reports, complying with the requirements of subsections 30(2) and (3); and

(j) keeping available for inspection

(2) The authority of the owner or operator of the mill under section 34 is also conditional on the operator

(a) not combining any treated effluent with water before the treated effluent is deposited; and

(b) not combining any treated effluent with any other effluent before the treated effluent is deposited, unless

(3) The authority of the owner of the mill under section 34 is, if the owner is not the same person as the operator, also conditional on the owner exercising all due diligence to ensure that the operator meets the applicable conditions specified in this section.

Submission of Data and Reports in Respect of the Dissolved
Oxygen Monitoring Program

36. (1) The data obtained from the dissolved oxygen monitoring program referred to in paragraph 35(1)(f) shall be submitted to the authorization officer no later than 30 days after the end of the month in which the data are collected.

(2) An interpretive report that describes and evaluates the data obtained from the dissolved oxygen monitoring program in any calendar year shall be submitted to the authorization officer no later than March 31 following that calendar year.

(3) The data and the report shall be submitted electronically in the format provided by the federal Department of the Environment, but they shall be submitted in writing if

(a) no such format has been provided; or

(b) it is, owing to circumstances beyond the operator's control, impracticable to submit them electronically in the format provided.

Information on Outfall Structures

37. (1) The information on outfall structures required by paragraph 35(1)(h) is as follows:

(a) a general description of each outfall structure, together with its plans and specifications; and

(2) Information on any proposed change to an outfall structure shall be submitted at least 90 days before the change is made.

Reports of Deposits out of the Normal Course of Events

38. (1) For the purpose of subsection 38(4) of the Act, the following authorities are prescribed:

(a) the persons providing 24-hour emergency telephone service provided by the Branch set out in column II of item 6 of Schedule VI; and

(b) the person occupying the position set out in column III of item 6 of that Schedule.

(3) For the purpose of evaluating the effect of a deposit out of the normal course of events that has occurred from an outfall structure, the operator shall, in accordance with subsection 2(1) of Schedule II and as soon as possible in the circumstances,

(a) collect a grab sample from the outfall structure through which the deposit occurred and subject the sample to

(b) subject another sample, collected from the outfall structure through which the deposit occurred in accordance with section 6 of Schedule II, to a BOD test.

(4) The collecting and testing of a sample under subsection (3) are not required if, for the purpose of monitoring effluent under paragraph 35(1)(b), the same sample has already been collected and the same test has been conducted whose result permits the determination of the effect of the deposit out of the normal course of events.

(5) The written report shall contain the following information:

(a) the BOD of the BOD matter that was deposited, and the quantity of suspended solids that was deposited, that exceeded the maximum respective quantities authorized by section 34 or, if either of them cannot be determined, an estimate of that BOD or of that quantity of suspended solids, or both, along with information and supporting data on how the estimate was derived;

(b) an estimate of the BOD of the BOD matter that was deposited during any period in which the monitoring equipment was malfunctioning, and of the quantity of suspended solids that was deposited during that period along with information and supporting data on how the estimate was derived;

(d) the results of the test that was conducted pursuant to subparagraph (3)(a)(ii) or any test that meets the criteria of subsection (4);

(e) whether any sample of effluent failed an acute lethality test or a Daphnia magna test conducted in accordance with sections 17 and 18 of Schedule II;

(f) the quantity of any deleterious substance that was deposited in any way other than through an outfall structure in respect of which a plan had been provided in accordance with paragraph 37(1)(a) or, if the quantity cannot be determined, an estimate of the quantity along with information and supporting data on how the estimate was derived;

(g) the quantity of any deleterious substance that was deposited through an outfall structure through which untreated effluent is deposited or, if the quantity cannot be determined, an estimate of the quantity along with information and supporting data on how the estimate was derived; and

(h) the circumstances of the deposit, the measures that were taken to mitigate the effects of the deposit and, if the emergency response plan prepared in accordance with section 11 was implemented, details concerning its implementation.

19. Schedule I to the Regulations is amended by replacing the reference "(Section 2 and paragraph 9(1)(a))" after the heading "SCHEDULE I" with the reference "(Section 2)".

20. Section 1 of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

1. The test to determine the acute lethality of effluent is a test conducted in accordance with section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition.

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

2. (1) The test in respect of Daphnia magna is a test conducted in accordance with section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 Second Edition.

22. (1) Subsection 3(1) of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

3. (1) The test to determine the BOD of an effluent is a test conducted in accordance with one of the following standard five-day BOD test methods (BOD₅):

(a) the method described in subsections 5210A and 5210B of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1998, published jointly by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation, as amended from time to time;

(b) the method described in Method H.2, Determination of Biochemical Oxygen Demand, December 1991, published by the Technical Section of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (now the Pulp and Paper Technical Association of Canada), as amended from time to time; or

(c) a test method equivalent to a method referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) that is required by or authorized under the law of the province where the mill or the off-site treatment facility is located.

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

(3) Despite subsection (1), the test to determine the BOD of an effluent shall

(a) commence within 48 hours of the sampling; and

(b) be conducted on a sample that is of such concentration that the depletion of oxygen is equal to or greater than 30% but does not exceed 60%.

23. Subsection 4(1) of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

4. (1) The test to determine the presence and quantity of suspended solids in effluent is a test conducted in accordance with one of the following standard test methods for total suspended solids:

(a) the applicable method described in subsections 2540A to 2540E of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1998, published jointly by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation, as amended from time to time;

(b) the method described in Method H.1, Determination of Solids Content of Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents, August 1993, published by the Technical Section of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (now the Pulp and Paper Technical Association of Canada), as amended from time to time; or

24. Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

SCHEDULE II

(Subsections 7(1) and (3), 8(1), 9(1) and (2), 29(1), 32(3),
35(1) and (2) and 38(3) and paragraph 38(5)(e))

EFFLUENT MONITORING

Required Monitoring

1. (1) Effluent from a mill other than the effluent from a mill that is deposited into an off-site treatment facility, and effluent from an off-site treatment facility, shall be monitored in accordance with this Schedule for

(a) the presence of acutely lethal effluent and the effect on Daphnia magna;

(b) the BOD of BOD matter;

(d) volume; and

(e) pH levels and electrical conductivity.

(2) Effluent from a mill that deposits into an off-site treatment facility shall be monitored in accordance with this Schedule for

(a) the BOD of BOD matter; and

(b) volume.

Location of Sampling

2. (1) The sampling of effluent from a mill, other than the effluent from a mill that is deposited into an off-site treatment facility, that is required by this Schedule — except for sampling conducted in accordance with sections 14 and 15 or sections 18 and 19 — shall be conducted at any point of an outfall structure that is located upstream of the deposit point of the effluent and downstream of

(a) the treatment if the mill treats the effluent; and

(b) the combination point if the mill combines effluents before their deposit.

(2) The sampling of effluent from an off-site treatment facility that is required by this Schedule shall be conducted at any point of an outfall structure that is located downstream of the treatment and upstream of the deposit point of the effluent.

(3) The sampling of effluent from a mill that deposits effluent into an off-site treatment facility that is required by this Schedule shall be conducted at any point of an outfall structure that is located upstream of the deposit point of the effluent in the off-site treatment facility and

(a) downstream of the treatment if the mill treats the effluent;

(b) downstream of the combination point if the mill combines effluents before their deposit; and

Acute Lethality and Effect on Daphnia magna

3. For the purpose of monitoring for the presence of acutely lethal effluent and the effect on Daphnia magna, a grab sample of effluent shall be collected from each outfall structure once a week when the mill or the off-site treatment facility is depositing effluent.

4. (1) Subject to section 5, the samples of effluent collected in accordance with section 3 shall be tested as follows:

(a) each month, one of the samples collected during that month from each outfall structure in accordance with section 3 shall be subjected to an acute lethality test; and

(b) each of the samples collected in accordance with section 3 shall be subjected to a Daphnia magna test.

(2) The following procedures apply in respect of an acute lethality test referred to in paragraph (1)(a):

(a) the day on which a sample is to be collected for testing shall be selected by the operator, and notice of that day shall be given to the authorization officer, at least 30 days in advance;

(b) the operator shall collect the sample on the selected day except if, owing to unforeseen circumstances, the operator cannot sample on that day, and in that case, shall do so as soon as possible after that day; and

5. (1) If a sample of effluent from an outfall structure fails a test conducted in accordance with paragraph 4(1)(a) of this Schedule or subparagraph 32(3)(a)(i) or 38(3)(a)(i) of these Regulations, each of the subsequent weekly samples collected from that outfall structure in accordance with section 3 shall be subjected to a test conducted in accordance with section 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition.

(2) If a sample of effluent from an outfall structure fails a test conducted in accordance with paragraph 4(1)(b), a grab sample of effluent shall be collected from that outfall structure without delay and subjected to a test conducted in accordance with section 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, at the time the sample that failed the test conducted in accordance with paragraph 4(1)(b) was collected, a sample of effluent was also collected from that outfall structure under subsection (1) or paragraph 4(1)(a) and subjected to a test in accordance with section 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition.

(4) If a sample of effluent from an outfall structure fails a test conducted in accordance with subsection (2), each of the subsequent weekly samples collected from that outfall structure in accordance with section 3 shall be subjected to a test conducted in accordance with section 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition.

(5) The testing of samples of effluent shall continue as required by subsection (1) or (4), as applicable, until three consecutive tests are passed, after which testing may resume as required by section 4.

BOD and Suspended Solids

6. (1) For the purpose of monitoring the BOD of BOD matter and the quantity of suspended solids in the case of a mill whose effluent is described in subsection 1(1) or of an off-site treatment facility, there shall be collected, from each outfall structure during each daily period that the mill or the facility is depositing effluent,

(a) a continuous sample of the effluent;

(b) equal samples of the effluent, collected at least every 15 minutes, for the preparation of a composite sample; or

(c) samples of the effluent in a quantity proportional to the effluent's volume, collected at least every 15 minutes, for the preparation of a composite sample.

(2) If effluent is deposited through an outfall structure for only a portion of a daily period, a sample of effluent shall be collected from that outfall structure during the period when that effluent is being deposited.

7. The samples of effluent collected in accordance with section 6 shall be tested as follows:

(a) at least three of the samples collected from each outfall structure during each week shall be subjected to a BOD test; and

(b) each of the samples collected shall be subjected to a suspended solids test.

8. (1) For the purpose of monitoring the BOD of BOD matter in the case of a mill whose effluent is described in subsection 1(2), there shall be collected, from each outfall structure once during each month,

(a) a sample of the effluent during any daily period in accordance with section 6 using equipment that is installed, maintained and calibrated so that it is capable of taking duplicate samples of effluent from each outfall structure, or a sufficient volume of effluent from each outfall structure to obtain split samples; or

(b) at least four grab samples of the effluent, at intervals evenly spaced throughout a daily period and combining them as a composite sample.

(2) If a mill is in operation and is depositing effluent for a daily period or a portion of a daily period during a month, the samples shall be collected during that daily period or portion of a daily period.

(3) If sampling is conducted using the equipment referred to in paragraph (1)(a), the requirements of subsections 8(2) and (3) of these Regulations apply in respect of that equipment.

9. Each of the samples of effluent collected in accordance with section 8 shall be subjected to a BOD test.

Volume of Effluent

10. (1) For the purpose of monitoring the volume of effluent in the case of a mill whose effluent is described in subsection 1(1) or of an off-site treatment facility, the volume of effluent that is deposited through each outfall structure during each daily period shall be determined using the monitoring equipment referred to in paragraph 8(1)(b) of these Regulations.

(2) If the actual volume of effluent that is deposited cannot be determined because the monitoring equipment is malfunctioning, the volume shall be calculated based on flow rates that are estimated using generally accepted engineering principles.

11. (1) For the purpose of monitoring the volume of effluent in the case of a mill referred to in subsection 1(2), the volume of effluent that is deposited through each outfall structure during each daily period that a sample is collected in accordance with section 8 shall be

(a) determined using equipment that is installed, maintained and calibrated so as to permit the determination of the volume of effluent that is deposited through each outfall structure using a method that accords with generally accepted engineering principles, such as a method referred to in paragraph 8(1)(b) of these Regulations; or

(b) calculated based on flow rates that are estimated using generally accepted engineering principles.

(2) If the volume of effluent is determined using equipment referred to in paragraph (1)(a), the requirements of subsections 8(2) and (3) of these Regulations apply in respect of that equipment.

pH Levels and Electrical Conductivity

12. For the purpose of monitoring the pH levels and electrical conductivity of effluent, the effluent that is deposited through each outfall structure shall be tested continuously for pH levels and for electrical conductivity.

Combination of Effluents

Authorization to Combine

13. If, under the authority of an authorization, treated effluent is combined with other effluent at a mill before being deposited, the effluent at the mill shall, in addition to being monitored in accordance with the other requirements of this Schedule, be monitored for the presence of acutely lethal effluent, for the BOD of BOD matter and for volume in accordance with sections 14 to 16.

14. For the purpose of monitoring for the presence of acutely lethal effluent, a grab sample of the treated effluent and a grab sample of the other effluent shall be collected once a month upstream of the combination point, and each of the samples collected shall be subjected to an acute lethality test.

15. (1) For the purpose of monitoring the BOD of BOD matter, the following samples of effluent shall be collected once every three months and subjected to a BOD test:

(a) a sample of each effluent that is to be treated; and

(b) a sample of the treated effluent upstream of the point where it is combined with the other effluent.

(2) The samples shall be collected in accordance with section 6 using equipment that is installed, maintained and calibrated so that it is capable of taking duplicate samples of effluent or a sufficient volume of effluent to obtain split samples, or

(a) in the case of effluent that is to be treated,

(b) in the case of the treated effluent, by collecting grab samples of the effluent not more than six hours apart during a daily period and combining them as a composite sample.

(3) If sampling is conducted using the equipment referred to in subsection (2), the requirements of subsections 8(2) and (3) of these Regulations apply in respect of that equipment.

16. (1) For the purpose of monitoring the volume of effluent, the volume of each of the effluents referred to in section 15 shall, during each daily period that a sample is collected in accordance with that section, be determined as follows:

(a) if samples are collected in accordance with section 6 using equipment referred to in subsection 15(2), by using equipment that is installed, maintained and calibrated so that it permits the determination of the volume of the effluent using a method that accords with generally accepted engineering principles, such as a method referred to in paragraph 8(1)(b) of these Regulations; and

(b) if samples are collected in accordance with paragraph 15(2)(a) or (b), by using equipment referred to in paragraph (a) or by means of a calculation based on flow rates that are estimated using generally accepted engineering principles.

(2) If the volume of effluent is determined using equipment referred to in subsection (1), the requirements of subsections 8(2) and (3) of these Regulations apply in respect of that equipment.

Combination at Port Alberni Mill

17. If treated effluent is combined with other effluent at the Port Alberni Mill before being deposited, the effluent at that mill shall, in addition to being monitored in accordance with the other requirements of this Schedule, be monitored for the presence of acutely lethal effluent and the effect on Daphnia magna, and for pH levels and electrical conductivity, in accordance with sections 18 and 19.

18. (1) For the purpose of monitoring for the presence of acutely lethal effluent and the effect on Daphnia magna, a grab sample of the treated effluent and a grab sample of the other effluent shall be collected once a week upstream of the combination point, and the samples collected shall be tested as follows:

(a) the samples collected during one week of each month shall be subjected to an acute lethality test; and

(b) each of the samples collected shall be subjected to a Daphnia magna test.

(2) If a sample of effluent fails a test conducted in accordance with paragraph (1)(b), a grab sample of that effluent shall be collected without delay and subjected to a test conducted in accordance with section 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, at the time the sample that failed the test conducted in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) was collected, a sample of effluent was also collected from that outfall under paragraph (1)(a) and subjected to a test in accordance with section 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition.

19. For the purpose of monitoring the pH levels and electrical conductivity of effluent, the treated effluent and the other effluent shall be tested continuously for pH levels and for electrical conductivity upstream of the combination point.

Reduced Monitoring

20. (1) The sampling and testing, other than testing for pH levels and electrical conductivity, of the effluent that is deposited through each outfall structure may be conducted at a reduced frequency of once a month, and the volume of effluent that is deposited through that outfall structure may be calculated based on flow rates that are estimated using generally accepted engineering principles, if either of the following conditions is met:

(a) each sample of effluent from that outfall structure that was tested during the preceding month

(b) the effluent from that outfall structure contains only water that has been used exclusively for non-contact cooling purposes.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the sampling of effluent from an outfall structure may be done by collecting a grab sample.

(3) If monitoring of the effluent that is deposited through an outfall structure is being conducted in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) on the basis that the effluent met the conditions specified in paragraph (1)(a), monitoring may no longer be conducted in accordance with those subsections if the effluent

(a) is acutely lethal;

(b) contains BOD matter having a BOD of 10 mg or more per litre;

(d) contains any other deleterious substance.

25. The heading "PART I/(Subsection 15(2))" in Schedule III to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(Subsection 15(2) and paragraph 18(3)(d))

26. (1) Subsections 3(1) and (2) of Schedule III to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

3. (1) In the case of an owner or operator of a mill referred to in paragraph 15(1)(a) of these Regulations who seeks an authorization,

(a) the average daily BOD of the BOD matter and the average daily quantity of suspended solids, in the waste water from sources other than a mill before the waste water is treated by the mill, expressed in kilograms, and an identification of those sources;

(b) the reference production rate for all finished product, expressed in tonnes per day;

(c) a description of the preventative measures that are taken at the mill at the production stage to reduce the BOD of the BOD matter and the quantity of suspended solids in the effluent; and

(d) an estimate of the percentage of the BOD of the BOD matter, and of the percentage of the quantity of suspended solids that will be removed from the waste water during treatment.

(2) In the case of an owner or operator of a mill referred to in paragraph 15(1)(b) of these Regulations who seeks an authorization,

(a) the average daily BOD of the BOD matter and the average daily quantity of suspended solids in the effluent before it is treated by the mill, expressed in kilograms;

(b) the reference production rate of the mill for all finished product other than dissolving grade sulphite pulp and the reference production rate of the mill for dissolving grade sulphite pulp, expressed in tonnes per day;

(c) a description of the preventative measures that are taken at the mill at the production stage to reduce the BOD of the BOD matter and the quantity of suspended solids in the effluent; and

(d) the percentage of the BOD of the BOD matter and the quantity of suspended solids that are removed from the effluent during treatment.

(2.1) In the case of an owner or operator of an off-site treatment facility referred to in paragraph 15(1)(c) of these Regulations who seeks an authorization,

(a) the average daily BOD of the BOD matter in the effluent before it is treated by the off-site treatment facility, expressed in kilograms; and

(b) an estimate of the percentage of the BOD of the BOD matter and of the quantity of suspended solids that will be removed from the effluent during treatment.

(2) Subsection 3(4) of Schedule III to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Despite subsections (1) to (2.1), an owner or operator who seeks an authorization shall provide, in addition to the information that they are able to provide under those subsections, the projections for the 12 months following the application for the authorization of the information that they were not able to provide under paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), (2)(a), (b) and (d) or (2.1)(a), the plans, specifications, design and a detailed description of the production process and, if applicable, the treatment process if

(a) the owner or operator has not provided all of the information required by subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) but they have provided the information required by paragraphs (1)(c) or (2)(c), as applicable; or

(b) the owner or operator has not provided all of the information required by subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) for the full three-year period referred to in subsection (3) but they have provided the information required by paragraphs (1)(c) or (2)(c), as applicable.

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

4. (1) In respect of a mill, if the owner or operator seeks authority to combine treated effluent with other effluent before the combined effluent is deposited, the following information is required:

(2) Paragraph 4(1)(f) of the English version of Schedule III to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(f) the BOD of the BOD matter and the quantity of suspended solids in the other effluent; and

28. Part II of Schedule III to the Regulations is repealed.

29. Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

SCHEDULE IV
(Subsection 18(2))

AUTHORIZATION

[Name and address of owner and operator]

Owner:	______________	Operator:	______________
	______________		______________
	______________		______________
	______________		______________

in respect of [name and address of mill or off-site treatment facility]

______________________________
______________________________
______________________________

is/are hereby authorized, as of [date] __________,
until [date] __________,

[Check items that apply.]

To combine treated effluent with other effluent before the treated effluent is deposited.
To deposit BOD of the BOD matter and suspended solids in the quantities and during the periods indicated as follows:

MAXIMUM QUANTITIES PER DAILY PERIOD
BOD OF THE BOD MATTER (kg)	SUSPENDED SOLIDS (kg)

NUMBER OF DAYS IN THE MONTH	MAXIMUM QUANTITIES PER MONTH
NUMBER OF DAYS IN THE MONTH	BOD OF THE BOD MATTER (kg)	SUSPENDED SOLIDS (kg)
28 days
29 days
30 days
31 days

RPR:	_____	t/d	B_o:	_____	kg/d	S_o:	_____	kg/d
RPR₁:	_____	t/d	RPR₂:	_____	t/d	A:	_____	kg/d

NOTE: These parameters are defined in sections 19 to 21 of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.

IMPORTANT:
Please refer to section 7 of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations for conditions governing the authority to deposit. In addition, please note that this authorization may be amended or withdrawn in accordance with section 18 of those Regulations.

Authorization Officer:	[Signature]	______	Date:	______
	[Name]	______
	[Title]	______

30. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after Schedule IV :

SCHEDULE IV.1

(Subsections 29(1) and 30(1) and (3) and paragraph 35(1)(i))

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING STUDIES

Interpretation

1. The following definitions apply in this Schedule.

"effect on fish tissue" means that the concentration of chlorinated dioxins and furans, expressed as toxic equivalents of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin, exceeds 15 pg/g wet weight in muscle or 30 pg/g wet weight in liver or hepatopancreas in fish taken in the exposure area. (effet sur les tissus de poissons)

"effect on the benthic invertebrate community" means a statistical difference between data referred to in subparagraph 11(a)(ii) from a study respecting the benthic invertebrate community conducted in

effet sur la communauté d'invertébrés benthiques

"effect on the fish population" means a statistical difference between data relating to the indicators referred to in subparagraph 11(a)(i) from a study respecting fish population conducted in

effet sur la population de poissons

"exposure area" means all fish habitat and waters frequented by fish that are exposed to effluent. (zone exposée)

"fish" means fish as defined in section 2 of the Fisheries Act, but does not include parts of fish, parts of shellfish, parts of crustaceans or parts of marine animals. (poisson)

"reference area" means water frequented by fish that is not exposed to effluent and that has fish habitat that, as far as practicable, is most similar to that of the exposure area. (zone de référence)

"sampling area" means the area within a reference or exposure area where representative samples are collected. (zone d'échantillonnage)

Sublethal Toxicity Testing

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 a fish species, an invertebrate species and an algal species.

(2) In the case of effluent that is deposited into fresh waters, sublethal toxicity tests shall be conducted by using the following test methodologies, as amended from time to time, as applicable to each species:

(a) in the case of a fish species,

Biological Test Method: Test of Larval Growth and Survival Using Fathead Minnows

Biological Test Method: Toxicity Tests Using Early Life Stages of Salmonid Fish (Rainbow Trout)

(b) in the case of an invertebrate species, Biological Test Method: Test of Reproduction and Survival Using the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia (Report EPS 1/RM/21), February 1992, published by the federal Department of the Environment; and

Biological Test Method: Growth Inhibition Test Using Freshwater Alga Selenastrum capricornutum

Détermination de l'inhibition de la croissance chez l'algue Selenastrum capricornutum

(3) In the case of effluent that is deposited into marine or estuarine waters, sublethal toxicity tests shall be conducted by using the following test methodologies, as amended from time to time, as applicable to each species:

(a) in the case of an invertebrate species, Biological Test Method: Fertilization Assay Using Echinoids (Sea Urchins and Sand Dollars) (Report EPS 1/RM/27), December 1992, published by the federal Department of the Environment; and

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

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms

Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms

Biological Monitoring Studies

3. Biological monitoring studies consist of

(a) a study respecting the fish population, if the concentration of effluent in the exposure area is greater than 1% in the area located within 250 m of a point of deposit of the effluent in water;

(b) a study respecting fish tissue if

Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations

(ii) an effect on fish tissue was reported in the most recent interpretive report; and

Study Design

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 subsection (2), consists of

(a) the site characterization referred to in section 5;

(b) if a study respecting fish population is required under paragraph 3(a), a description of how the study will be conducted, that includes

(c) if a study respecting fish tissue is required under paragraph 3(b), a description of how the study will be conducted that includes

(d) a description of how the study respecting the benthic invertebrate community will be conducted that includes

(e) the dates and times when any samples will be collected;

(f) a description of the quality assurance and quality control measures that will be implemented to ensure the validity of the data that is collected;

(g) a summary of the results of any previous biological monitoring studies that were conducted respecting the fish population, fish tissue or the benthic invertebrate community; and

(h) if the two most recent interpretive reports indicate the same effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, a description of one or more additional sampling areas within the exposure area that are required in order to assess the magnitude and geographical extent of the effect.

(2) If the most recent interpretive report indicates the magnitude and geographic 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 only the summary referred to in paragraph (1)(g) and a detailed description of field and laboratory studies that will be used to determine the cause of the effect.

5. (1) The site characterization consists of

(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 250 m from each point of deposit of the effluent in water;

(b) a description of the reference and exposure areas where the biological monitoring studies will be conducted that includes a mapped description of the sampling areas and information on the geological, hydrological, oceanographical, limnological, chemical and biological features of those areas;

(c) a description of any anthropogenic, natural or other factors that are not related to the effluent under study and that may reasonably be expected to contribute to any observed effect;

(d) the type of production process and treatment system used by the mill or off-site treatment facility; and

(e) any additional information relevant to the site characterization.

(2) If the information described in subsection (1) was submitted in a previous study design, it may be submitted in summary format, but it shall include a detailed description of any changes to that information since the submission of the most recent study design.

6. The information respecting the fish population and fish tissue studies shall include a description of and the scientific rationale for

(a) the fish species selected, taking into account the abundance of the species most exposed to effluent;

(b) the sampling areas selected;

(d) the field and laboratory methodologies selected.

7. The information respecting the benthic invertebrate community studies shall include a description of and the scientific rationale for

(a) the sampling areas selected, taking into account the benthic invertebrate diversity and the area most exposed to effluent;

(b) the sample size selected;

(d) the field and laboratory methodologies selected.

Conducting Biological Monitoring Studies

8. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the biological monitoring studies shall be conducted in accordance with the study design submitted under section 4.

(2) If it is impossible to follow the study design because of unusual circumstances, the owner or operator may deviate from the study design but shall inform the authorization officer without delay of those circumstances and of how the study was or will be conducted.

9. When studies respecting fish population or the benthic invertebrate community are conducted, water samples shall be collected from the sampling areas selected under paragraphs 6(b) and 7(a), and the following information shall be recorded:

(a) water temperature;

(b) depth;

(d) in the case of effluent that is deposited into fresh water, pH levels, electrical conductivity, hardness, total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total organic carbon; and

(e) in the case of effluent that is deposited into marine or estuarine waters, salinity.

10. When studies respecting the benthic invertebrate community are conducted, sediment samples shall be collected from the sampling areas selected under paragraph 7(a), and the following information shall be recorded:

(a) particle size distribution and total organic carbon; and

(b) in the case of effluent that is deposited into marine or estuarine waters, the ratio of carbon to nitrogen, redox potential (Eh) and total sulphides.

Assessment of Data Collected From Studies

11. The data collected during the biological monitoring studies shall be used

(a) to calculate the mean, the standard deviation, the standard error and the minimum and maximum values in the sampling areas for

(i) in the case of a study respecting the fish population, and if it is possible to obtain data to establish the following indicators — indicators of growth, reproduction, condition and survival that include the length, total body weight and age of the fish, the weight of its liver or hepatopancreas and, if the fish are sexually mature, the egg weight, fecundity and gonad weight of the fish, and

(ii) in the case of a study respecting the benthic invertebrate community — the total benthic invertebrate density, the evenness index, the taxa richness and the similarity index;

(b) to identify the sex of the fish sampled and the presence of any lesions, tumours, parasites or other abnormalities;

(c) to conduct an analysis of the results of the calculations under paragraph (a) and information identified under paragraph (b) to determine if there is a statistical difference between the sampling areas;

(d) to conduct a statistical analysis of the results of the calculations under paragraph (a) to determine the probability of correctly detecting an effect of a pre-defined size and the degree of confidence that can be placed in the calculations; and

(e) to calculate the concentration of chlorinated dioxins and furans in fish tissue taken from the exposure area, which concentration is expressed as toxic equivalents of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin.

Interpretive Report

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

(a) a description of any deviation from the study design that occurred while the biological monitoring studies were being conducted and any impact that the deviation had on the studies;

(b) the latitude and longitude of sampling areas in degrees, minutes and seconds and a description of the sampling areas sufficient to identify their location;

(d) the sample sizes;

(e) the results of the data assessment made under section 11 and any supporting raw data;

(f) based on the results referred to in paragraph (e), the identification of any effect on

(g) if the study design contains the information described in paragraph 4(1)(h), the magnitude and geographical extent of the effect on fish population, fish tissue or the benthic invertebrate community;

(h) the information referred to in sections 9 and 10;

(i) a description of any complaint within the three preceding years to the owner or operator of a mill about fish flavour or odour;

(j) the conclusions of the biological monitoring studies, based on the results of the statistical analysis conducted under paragraph 11(c), taking into account any of the following factors that may have affected those results:

(k) a description of the impact of the results on the study design for subsequent biological monitoring studies; and

(l) the date of the next biological monitoring studies.

(2) If a study design is submitted under subsection 4(2), the interpretive report shall consist of only the cause of the effect on fish population, fish tissue or the benthic invertebrate community, and any supporting raw data and, if the cause was not determined, an explanation of why and a description of any steps that need to be taken in the next study to determine that cause.

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

31. Subparagraph 2(a)(i) of Schedule V to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Item	Column II Authorization Officer
2.(a)	(i) for the purposes of giving the notification mentioned in paragraph (a) of the definition "daily period" in section 2, and for the purposes of paragraphs 7(1)(h) and (i) and 10(1)(b) and sections 13, 15 to 18 and 28 to 31, of subsection 4(2) of Schedule II and for the purposes of Schedule IV.1, Director, Environmental Protection Branch, Federal Department of the Environment, Quebec Region, and

32. Paragraph 7(a) of Schedule V to the Regulations is amended by replacing the expression "Manager, Environment Section" with the expression "Manager of Environment".

33. Paragraph 8(a) of Schedule V to the Regulations is amended by replacing the expression "Northern Division, Regional Service" with the expression "Northern Region, Regional Services".

34. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after Schedule V:

SCHEDULE VI
(Subsections 32(1) and 38(1))

NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF DEPOSITS
OUT OF THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS

Item	Column I Province	Column II Notification	Column III Written Report
1.	Ontario	Environmental Protection Branch Ontario Region Environment Canada	Director Environmental Protection Branch Ontario Region Environment Canada
2.	Quebec	Environmental Protection Branch Quebec Region Environment Canada	Director Environmental Protection Branch Quebec Region Environment Canada
3.	Nova Scotia	Maritimes Regional Office Canadian Coast Guard Fisheries and Oceans Canada	Director Environmental Protection Branch Atlantic Region Environment Canada
4.	New Brunswick	Maritimes Regional Office Canadian Coast Guard Fisheries and Oceans Canada	Director Environmental Protection Branch Atlantic Region Environment Canada
5.	Manitoba	Manitoba Division Office Environmental Protection Branch Prairie and Northern Region Environment Canada	Director Environmental Protection Branch Prairie and Northern Region Environment Canada
6.	British Columbia	Environmental Protection Branch Pacific and Yukon Region Environment Canada	Director Environmental Protection Branch Pacific and Yukon Region Environment Canada
7.	Saskatchewan	Enforcement and Compliance Branch Saskatchewan Environment	Director Enforcement and Compliance Branch Saskatchewan Environment
8.	Alberta	Enforcement and Monitoring Branch Alberta Environment	Director Enforcement and Monitoring Branch Alberta Environment
9.	Newfoundland and Labrador	Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Office Canadian Coast Guard Fisheries and Oceans Canada	Director Environmental Protection Branch Atlantic Region Environment Canada

SCHEDULE VII
(Paragraph 35(1)(f))

DISSOLVED OXYGEN MONITORING PROGRAM

Monitoring Stations

1. For the purposes of the dissolved oxygen monitoring program, the monitoring stations are

(a) the outfall station, located at latitude 49°14.35'N, and longitude 124°49.10'W;

(b) the HI-2 station, located at latitude 49°13.92'N, and longitude 124°49.17'W;

(d) the 5 km station, located at latitude 49°11.80'N, and longitude 124°49.00'W.

Parameters

2. Readings of the parameters set out in section 3 shall be taken at each monitoring station

(a) once per week during the period beginning on June 1 and ending on October 31 in each year; and

(b) three times per month during the period beginning on November 1 and ending on May 31 in each year, and a period of at least seven days shall intervene between the sampling.

3. The following parameters shall be recorded at each monitoring station in vertical profiles, from the surface to the bottom, using a CTD (conductivity, temperature, depth) probe:

(a) the depth in metres;

(b) the temperature in degrees Celsius;

(d) the quantity of dissolved oxygen in milligrams per litre and in per cent air saturation.

Calibration

4. (1) For the purpose of checking the calibration of the CTD probe in respect of the recording of dissolved oxygen, a grab sample shall be taken once during each sampling day in accordance with section 2 at the station set out in paragraph 1(c), at depths of 1, 10 and 20 m, and shall be analysed using the Winkler dissolved oxygen analysis method.

(2) For the purpose of checking the calibration of the CTD probe in respect of the recording of salinity, instrument specifications should be followed.

Data to Be Submitted

5. (1) The data to be submitted under subsection 36(1) of the Regulations are the following:

(a) the parameters set out in paragraphs 3(b), (c) and (d), measured at the surface, at the bottom and at depths of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 50 m, where these depths exist, for each monitoring station;

(b) the Somass River flow, in cubic metres per second, at sampling location 08HB017, for the appropriate day in the year in question as recorded on the Hydat database of the federal Department of the Environment;

(c) the tide height, in metres, for the appropriate day in the year in question, as set out in the Canadian Tide and Current Tables, published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and

(d) the results of the analyses conducted in accordance with subsection 4(1).

(2) Each of the data referred to in subsection (1) shall include a statement of the hour in the 24-hour format and the date in month, day, year format.

35. The Regulations are amended by replacing the expression "Environmental Protection" with the expression "Environmental Protection Branch" wherever it occurs in the following provisions of Schedule V:

(a) item 1;

(b) paragraph 2(b);

(d) paragraph 7(b);

(e) paragraph 8(b); and

(f) item 9.

36. The English version of the Regulations is amended by replacing the expression "an authorization officer" with the expression "the authorization officer", with such modifications as the circumstances require, wherever it occurs in the following provisions:

(a) subsection 13(1);

(b) subsection 13(4); and

TRANSITIONAL

37. Every authorization that was issued under section 16 or 17 of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations before the coming into force of these Regulations and that is not withdrawn before these Regulations come into force remains in effect until it is amended or withdrawn under section 18 of those Regulations, as amended by section 14 of these Regulations.

REPEAL

38. The Port Alberni Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (see footnote 1) are repealed.

COMING INTO FORCE

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

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Description

The Regulations Amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the amendments) are a result of a review of the former regulatory framework under the Fisheries Act with respect to pulp and paper effluent, conducted by Environment Canada, and of consultations with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and stakeholders. These Amendments are aimed at streamlining and improving the former regulatory framework, and are designed to increase clarity and direction to the regulatees and regulators. They do not impose stricter allowable discharges, and, as a result, they will not impose a need for mills and off-site treatment facilities to expend additional costs for pollution prevention and control measures.

As most of the current changes to the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations introduced in 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the PPER) also apply to the Port Alberni Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (hereinafter referred to as Port Alberni Regulations), the amendments also include provisions to merge the Port Alberni Regulations into the PPER. However, the stricter allowable discharges and most of the specific requirements that were found in the Port Alberni Regulations are maintained in the new framework of the amendments. The Port Alberni Regulations are therefore revoked upon the coming into force of the amendments.

The Port Alberni Regulations and the PPER are hereinafter collectively referred to as the two Regulations.

The amendments come into force on the date of registration by the Clerk of the Privy Council. The Amendments maintain the same stringent requirements governing the quality of pulp and paper mill effluent, thus the environment will continue to be protected.

Background

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 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of all the BOD matter, and the maximum quantity of suspended solids (TSS) that may be deposited from pulp and paper manufacturing operations. They also prohibit the deposit of any effluent that is acutely lethal to rainbow trout.

The PPER apply to all pulp and paper mills, except the mill at Port Alberni in British Columbia. Due to its location on a sensitive ecosystem, the mill at Port Alberni was subject to separate, more stringent site-specific regulations. Its requirements were defined in the Port Alberni Regulations, under the Fisheries Act, that were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, on December 2, 1992.

The PPER also apply to off-site treatment facilities (OSTFs), in cases where pulp and paper mill effluents represent more than a certain amount of the total effluent load treated by an OSTF.

In order to comply with the two Regulations, it was estimated that Canadian mills invested over $2.3 billion (1990$) in pollution prevention and control equipment in the period between 1992 and 1995. As a result, effluent quality has dramatically improved, and the quantity of deleterious substances deposited has declined significantly. By 2002, discharges of BOD matter and TSS had declined by 96 per cent and 74 per cent, respectively, compared to 1987 discharges. In 2002, average BOD matter deposits per tonne of finished product amounted to 1.2 kilograms per tonne (kg/t) compared to 26.3 kg/t in 1987. For TSS, the deposits were 2.9 kg/t in 2002, compared to 11.0 kg/t in 1987.

A key element in the two Regulations is the requirement to conduct Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) studies on a periodic basis. The objective of the studies is to evaluate the effects of effluents on fish, fish habitat, and the use of fisheries resources. EEM studies are being used as a means to assess the adequacy of regulations on a site-specific, regional, and national basis, in protecting fish, fish habitat, and the use of fisheries resources.

These two Regulations were the first regulations to require EEM studies, and such studies were for the first time performed by an industry, on a national basis. Following submission of the first cycle of EEM reports, an extensive scientific and technical review of the EEM program was launched in 1996, lasting for over a year, in order to improve guidance for future EEM cycles.

To allow sufficient time for the scientific and technical review and for the Government of Canada to make the necessary improvements to the EEM program, while giving mills and OSTFs reasonable time to adapt to these changes, an extra year was necessary for completing the second EEM cycle. Therefore, an amendment to the PPER was passed on April 1, 1999, extending the period for submission of EEM reports from three years to four years. Environment Canada and DFO felt that the extra year would not be necessary for subsequent cycles, after the second one. As such, the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for the 1999 regulatory amendment informed stakeholders of the intent to restore the future cycle reporting period to three years in a future regulatory amendment.

Major Changes

The following highlight the major areas of changes that are contained in the amendments:

1. Conditions Governing Authority to Deposit:

The Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish or in a place that may enter such waters, except when authorized by regulations made under the Fisheries Act, or under any other Act of Parliament, and provided that the deposit is made in accordance with conditions prescribed in those Regulations. Under the two Regulations, these conditions prescribe how mills and OSTFs can deposit their effluent and measure, monitor and report their discharges. The amendments regroup all of the monitoring, reporting and record-keeping requirements related to the deposit of effluent (such as effluent outfall information, EEM studies, etc.), under the conditions governing the authority to deposit.

2. Emergency Response Plan (ERP):

An ERP continues to be required under the amendments. However, key elements (see footnote 2) that must be included in an ERP are specified in the amendments, in contrast to the two Regulations, which did not specify components for the ERP. In addition, rather than submitting the ERP to an authorization officer (AO), the amendments require that the ERP and every update of the plan be kept at the site of the facility to which the plan applies, and be kept available for inspection for at least five years. A requirement is also added for facilities that have not been subject to the PPER for more than a year, to prepare a new ERP on the day that the facility becomes subject again to the PPER.

3. Authorizations:

The PPER permitted mills in operation prior to November 3, 1971, to apply for an authorization to deposit TSS or BOD matter in amounts exceeding the maximum quantities authorized by section 14 of the PPER. This provision has been deleted, since no mills have applied for such an authorization, and, based on a review of BOD matter and TSS discharges, there does not appear to be a need for this type of authorization. This change does not apply to authorizations for mills producing dissolving grade sulphite pulp, nor for mills treating effluent from sources other than a mill, which can continue to seek an authorization to exceed maximum quantities authorized by section 14 of the amendments, if those mills were in operation prior to November 3, 1971, and if they meet certain conditions.

4. Authorization officers:

Provincial officials can serve as an AO where an agreement has been signed with the Government of Canada. The amendments include a provision that where a provincial official is issuing authorizations, this official must consult with the federal Department of the Environment (i.e., Environment Canada) prior to issuing an authorization.

5. Rules relating to OSTFs and mills depositing to an OSTF:

The amendments change the basis upon which TSS allowable discharges for OSTFs are calculated. Under the PPER, the TSS allowable discharges were based on the incoming TSS load to be treated by OSTFs. This formula was developed on the assumption that mills would not treat their effluent prior to sending it to the OSTF. However, in practice, many mills depositing effluent to OSTFs provide primary treatment on site, which removes most of the TSS. Therefore, there was a need to modify the basis of the calculation for the TSS allowable discharges for OSTFs. In the amendments, the TSS allowable discharges for OSTFs are now based on the incoming BOD matter load to the OSTF. This change is made since the secondary treatment system used at OSTFs generates quantities of TSS in proportion to the incoming BOD matter load to the OSTF.

As a result of this change, mills depositing to OSTFs are no longer required to monitor the amounts of TSS in their effluent. However, these mills have to monitor the BOD in their effluent once per month. Changes have also been made to provide mills depositing to OSTFs more flexibility in the manner by which they estimate their effluent volume.

6. Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM):

A number of changes pertain to the EEM requirements:

• Most of the broad requirements contained in the documents entitled Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring Requirements EEM/1997/1 (see footnote 3) and Pulp and Paper Aquatic Effects Monitoring Requirements (Annex 1 to EEM/1997/1) (see footnote 4) have been incorporated into Schedule IV.1 of the amendments. This change clarifies the requirements for the EEM program, but does not substantially alter them. This new Schedule is not as prescriptive in terms of how the EEM studies are to be conducted. However, there is a requirement in the amendments for EEM studies to be performed, and their results recorded, interpreted and reported in accordance with generally accepted standards of good scientific practice, at the time that the studies are performed. In addition, Environment Canada continues to provide technical guidance through published documents that describe how the various elements of the EEM studies should be conducted, and the latest scientific practices.

• The reporting period for EEM studies is returned to a three-year period from the four-year reporting period that was introduced in the April 1, 1999 amendment to the PPER.

• The requirement to conduct a pre-operational EEM biological study for new mills or OSTFs has been removed. The first EEM study is due three years after the new mill or OSTF becomes subject to the currently amended PPER.

• For mills or OSTFs depositing effluent for less than 120 days in a calendar year, sublethal toxicity tests are required only once during the calendar year, instead of twice.

7. Monitoring and Reporting:

The two Regulations require mills and OSTFs to monitor their effluents and to report the test results to the AO. A number of changes pertain to these requirements:

• Schedule II of the two Regulations has been rewritten to provide greater clarity. This Schedule continues to set out the manner and the circumstances in which specific tests need to be conducted.

• When conducting measurements for BOD and TSS, regulatees are now permitted to use test methods required by or authorized by the law of the province where the mill and OSTF is located, when they are equivalent to the ones prescribed by the amendments.

• In the event of a failure of the weekly Daphnia magna test, the requirement to conduct thrice-weekly Daphnia magna testing is deleted. The requirement to conduct an immediate rainbow trout acute lethality test is, however, retained. As well, if this rainbow trout acute lethality test fails, then weekly rainbow trout acute lethality testing is required until three consecutive tests are passed. Removal of the requirement to conduct thrice-weekly Daphnia magna tests is supported by the fact that test results indicate that Daphnia magna is generally less sensitive than rainbow trout, and serves to trigger rainbow trout acute lethality testing.

• When a rainbow trout acute lethality test that is conducted in accordance with the requirements for a deposit out of the normal course of events fails, a new provision is added requiring weekly testing to be conducted, until three consecutive tests pass.

• The reporting requirements relating to deposits out of the normal course of events have been rewritten to clearly define the responsibilities under subsection 38(4) of the Fisheries Act. The time limit for submitting a written report containing the quantity of deleterious substances, the circumstances of the deposit and the remedial action taken, are now specified. Furthermore, the amendments now clearly specify the circumstances whereby additional sampling and monitoring of the outfall are required when there is a deposit out of the normal course of events.

• Mills having effluent containing only water that has been used exclusively for non-contact cooling purposes are now permitted to follow a reduced monitoring frequency of BOD, TSS and Daphnia magna, regardless of the BOD and TSS concentrations in that effluent.

• Due to improved receiving water quality at the Port Alberni site, in terms of dissolved oxygen levels in the Alberni Inlet, the number of stations and the frequency of testing of the dissolved oxygen monitoring that was required under the Port Alberni Regulations, are reduced in the amendments.

8. General:

Legal editing has been performed in many areas of the text, to adhere with the latest drafting style and to increase the clarity. Lapsed provisions have been deleted in areas such as transitional authorizations.

Alternatives

As these Amendments provide clarity, improve the former two Regulations, and revoke the Port Alberni Regulations, no other alternative is appropriate in this situation.

Benefits and Costs

Benefits

The amendments maintain the same stringent requirements governing the quality of the effluent discharged by the industry; hence no incremental environmental benefits accrue. However, the amendments provide non-quantifiable benefits in the form of a clearer and more understandable text of the regulatory requirements, thereby making the Regulations easier to comply with and enforce.

Costs

Impact on Mills and OSTF

The amendments do not impose stricter allowable discharges for mills or OSTFs, and affect mainly monitoring and reporting requirements. Consequently, no capital investment is expected to be incurred by regulatees as a result of the coming into force of the amendments. However, some of the changes result in operating cost increases and others in operating cost savings. It is estimated that the yearly incremental costs for mills depositing to OSTFs is in the order of $7,500 in 2002 dollars (2002$), and the overall yearly cost savings for mills that deposit directly into Canadian fishery waters and for OSTFs is $228,500 (2002$), which yields a yearly net cost savings of $221,000 (2002$). The following summarizes the incremental costs and cost savings of the changes in the amendments. Data contained in this section are in 2002$.

Summary of Annual Cost Savings and
Incremental Costs of the Amendments (in 2002$)

Changes	Cost Savings	Incremental Costs
1. Changes in EEM program • Removal of pre-operational biological studies for new mills	$18,000
• Reduced frequency of sublethal toxicity testing for mills depositing effluent less than 120 days/year	$11,000
2. Removal of thrice weekly Daphnia magna testing	$108,000
3. Monthly monitoring of BOD and removal of TSS monitoring for mills depositing to OSTFs		$7,500
4. Reduction of monitoring costs for effluent containing only water that has been used exclusively for non-contact cooling	$54,000
5. Reduction of the dissolved oxygen monitoring requirement in the Alberni Inlet	$37,500
Total	$228,500	$7,500

1. Changes in EEM program:

• The requirement to conduct a pre-operational EEM biological study for new mills or OSTFs has been removed. Based on past experience, it is estimated that there may be one additional mill that could become subject to the currently amended PPER every three years. This results in an estimated cost saving for a new mill of $54,000 every three years, or approximately $18,000 per year, for not having to conduct this study.

• For mills or OSTFs depositing effluent less than 120 days in a calendar year, sublethal toxicity tests are required only once during the calendar year. It is estimated that this change may affect one mill per year at a cost saving of $11,000 per year.

2. Changes to follow-up testing on occasion of a Daphnia magna failure:

The requirement of the thrice-weekly Daphnia magna testing upon failure of the regular weekly Daphnia magna test, has been removed. It is estimated that the cost savings of the removal of the thrice-weekly Daphnia magna testing requirement is approximately $108,000 per year, based on the frequency at which approximately 40 facilities per year have encountered Daphnia magna failures over recent years. However, the actual savings that materialize may be less, since some mills may still conduct additional Daphnia magna testing voluntarily, so as to investigate the cause of a Daphnia magna test failure.

3. Changes affecting mills depositing to an OSTF:

These mills are required to measure the BOD in their effluent on a monthly basis, instead of twice a year. However, they no longer need to measure their TSS deposits. These changes may cause a mill's monitoring costs to increase by approximately $250 per year. The annual incremental cost for all 30 mills subject to this provision is of the order of $7,500 per year.

4. Mills using water that has been used exclusively for non-contact cooling purposes:

Revisions to Schedule II permit mills to test monthly their effluent containing only water that has been used exclusively for non-contact cooling, rather than testing that effluent three times per week for BOD, daily for TSS, and weekly using the Daphnia magna test, regardless of the BOD and TSS content in that effluent. This may reduce a mill's annual monitoring cost by the order of $5,400 per year. A total of 10 mills would potentially be affected by this provision, for an overall national cost saving of $54,000 per year.

5. Reduction of the dissolved oxygen monitoring in the Alberni Inlet:

The reduction of the extent and frequency of the dissolved oxygen monitoring would result in a cost saving of approximately $37,500 per year for the Port Alberni mill.

Impact on Government

Federal

It is estimated that there are no incremental costs of administering and enforcing the amendments. In addition, it is expected that the merging of the two Regulations and the revocation of the Port Alberni Regulations will reduce the federal government administrative costs. However, these cost savings are difficult to quantify.

Provincial

The provinces are only affected by the changes if one of their officials is identified as an AO, and if they are issuing authorizations. The additional burden imposed under the amendments concerns the need to consult with the federal Department of the Environment prior to issuing any authorization. It is noted that no authorizations were requested from the mills in any province where provincial officials can issue such authorizations. This situation is expected to continue, thus this change has no immediate or anticipated effect.

Net Present Value of Cost Savings

The present values of the yearly net cost savings of $221,000 are presented in the following table, for various periods ranging from 10, 15 and 20 years, and at discount rates ranging from 3 per cent, to 5 per cent and 7 per cent. The net present value (NPV) associated with the discount rate of 5 per cent represents the central estimates, while the NPVs associated with 3 per cent and 7 per cent represent the lower and upper bounds of the estimated net cost savings to the mills and OSTFs.

Present Values^* of Yearly Net Cost Savings (in 2002$)

Discount Rates	10 Years	15 Years	20 Years
3%	$1,892,000	$2,645,000	$3,294,000
5%	$1,717,000	$2,304,000	$2,765,000
7%	$1,567,000	$2,027,000	$2,356,000

^* Numbers have been rounded off to the nearest thousand.

Thus, over a 10, 15, and 20 year period the net savings attributable to the amendments are estimated at approximately $1.7, $2.3 and $2.8 million, respectively (discounted at the rate of 5 per cent).

Consultation

Comments Received on the Proposed Amendments Prior to their Pre-Publication in the Canada Gazette Part I

Environment Canada consulted with industry, the provinces, Aboriginal groups, municipalities, federal departments, and environmental groups on the proposed changes to the two Regulations. These various groups mainly supported the proposed changes and provided specific comments on the proposal. The Department considered the views, comments and concerns of the various groups, and revised the proposed changes by striking a balance between the diverging views and preferences of stakeholders, in the drafting of the proposed amendments that were pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 28, 2003.

The following consultation initiatives have taken place prior to the pre-publication of the proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

• In November 1997, Environment Canada posted draft proposed amendments to the PPER on its Web site "The Green Lane" (see footnote 5). Letters were also sent to stakeholders to inform them of the proposal and to solicit comment.

• In June 2000, stakeholders were informed of a number of additional amendments being considered subsequent to the 1997 consultation. The proposed additional amendments were described in a consultation document, mailed to stakeholders and posted on "The Green Lane" (see footnote 6). Furthermore, information sessions were organized to explain the proposed amendments and to solicit comments.

• In July 2001, following pre-publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER), pulp and paper stakeholders were informed by letter that the EEM program in the MMER may serve as a model for incorporation of EEM requirements in the proposed Regulations.

• In December 2001, the EEM Pulp and Paper Multi-stakeholder Consultation Working Group met and initiated its activities with the mandate to review the results of the EEM program, to provide recommendations on future program evolution, and to facilitate communications between stakeholders. The Working Group comprises representatives from industry, environmental non-governmental organizations and Environment Canada. At one of their meetings, a summary of the proposed amendments to EEM was provided for comments.

• In October 2002, Environment Canada presented the proposed changes on the EEM program to industry members at two industry workshops to solicit comments.

The major comments received during the above-mentioned consultations, and how they have been addressed, are as follows:

Monitoring

• In the November 1997 consultation, industry associations and one mill stressed a need for the proposed amendments to enable mills that consistently passed the rainbow trout acute lethality test to adopt quarterly testing instead of monthly testing. Environmental groups supported maintaining monthly rainbow trout acute lethality testing. Environment Canada has assessed this request with DFO, and is of the view that regular monthly rainbow trout acute lethality testing should be maintained. The monthly testing assures a more stable effluent quality, and may serve to detect, and thereby prevent the deposits of deleterious substances that are not otherwise authorized, pursuant to the two Regulations and the Fisheries Act. Consequently, no changes are proposed to the current requirement to carry out monthly rainbow trout acute lethality testing.

• An industry association and several mills agreed with Environment Canada's proposal to remove the thrice-weekly Daphnia magna testing on the occasion of a Daphnia magna failure. Some mills further suggested that the Daphnia magna testing requirements should be removed altogether. Environmental groups disagreed with the change proposed by the Department, and an Aboriginal group suggested that if Daphnia magna testing is removed altogether, it should be replaced with the rainbow trout acute lethality testing. Environment Canada has considered these views, and maintains its proposal to remove thrice-weekly Daphnia magna testing, but will retain the once a week Daphnia magna testing as a trigger for rainbow trout acute lethality testing, if the weekly Daphnia magna test fails.

• An industry association requested that all the monitoring requirements (regular monitoring, as well as other monitoring such as that required when there is a spill) be grouped together in a clearer manner. In response, Schedule II of the two Regulations has been completely rewritten in more detail, to clarify monitoring requirements.

• An industry association objected to requiring mills to submit results of additional tests for BOD and TSS beyond those required under Schedule II, such as those conducted for the purpose of voluntary studies, where these do not meet the criteria of Schedule II. Therefore, changes are proposed in section 9 of the proposed amendments, to require only the reporting of additional tests for BOD and TSS that are conducted in accordance with Schedule II.

Reporting and Reference Methods

• In the 1997 regulatory amendments proposal, an industry association commented on the duplicative nature of reporting failures of tests conducted on effluents from deposits out of the normal course of events under section 36 of the PPER, compared to the reporting requirements under section 9 of the PPER. Environment Canada maintains that section 36 of the PPER requirements ensures that authorities are made aware of potentially adverse situations on a prompt basis. Regular reporting under section 9 of the PPER is not adequate in these situations, since mills and OSTFs are provided up to 30 days after month end to report the results. Also, there is no duplication of reporting, since section 9 of the PPER requirements addresses deposits that do not trigger the duty to report a deposit out of the normal course of events. Pursuant to subsection 38(4) of the Fisheries Act, the duty to report a deposit out of the normal course of events only arises when the following criteria are met: there has been a deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish or a serious and imminent danger thereof, and this results or may reasonably be expected to result in damage or danger to fish habitat, fish, or the use of fisheries resources. Thus, no changes have been made to the two Regulations.

• During the November 1997 consultation, Environment Canada proposed a 30-day period for the submission of the written report following a deposit out of the normal course of events. A citizen indicated that the 30-day period was too long, preferring a 10-day period. In response to this comment, in the June 2000 consultation document, the Department proposed a 15-day period for provision of the written report. Industry associations, one province, and several mills indicated that the 15-day period to submit a written report for a deposit out of the normal course of events was too short to mitigate the effects of the deposits, take appropriate samples, conduct required testing and submit the report. Another province agreed with this 15-day time frame. Environment Canada has since reconsidered the 15-day reporting period, and is proposing a 30-day period to submit the written report.

• A mill suggested that the reference method for the rainbow trout acute lethality test should allow dilution prior to testing, in proportion to the actual dilution of effluent in the receiving water. This is because the mill found that the current rainbow trout acute lethality testing procedure required by the PPER to determine if an effluent is acutely lethal renders their particular effluent toxic. However, since the submission of this comment, the mill has re-adjusted its operation, and this is no longer an issue for the mill. Thus, no change is being proposed.

• Industry associations and several mills expressed concern that the current non-acutely lethal requirement inhibits water-reduction programs and suggested that the rainbow trout acute lethality test method, used to determine if an effluent is acutely lethal, should be modified. In later meetings, an industry association raised this issue with Environment Canada. The Department noted that its review of mill compliance indicated high levels of compliance with the rainbow trout acute lethality tests, and, in cases where failures were occurring, these could be linked to the treatment system and to mill operations. Documentation of the problem was requested from industry for any changes to be considered, but none have been presented. Consequently, Environment Canada has made no change regarding this issue.

• In the June 2000 consultation, a number of mills, environmental groups and provinces requested clarification on what is involved in a risk assessment, which is one of the elements of the Emergency Response Plan (ERP). These groups stressed that the scope of a risk assessment should be defined. It is noted that Environment Canada's proposal does not refer to "risk assessment" but to "site risk analysis". The documents (see footnote 7) that were included in the 1997 regulatory amendments proposal, referenced below, can be used as a guide on how to prepare an ERP, and the scope of the site risk analysis required under the proposed Regulations is described in these two documents.

• Mills and one province commented that there was duplication among provincial spill-management requirements, the ERP, and the remedial plan in the event of failing an acute lethality test. Environment Canada has considered this, and believes that there is no duplication in the two Regulations, since the ERP and the remedial plans address different types of deposits. The ERP covers deposits that occur out of the normal course of operations, whereas the remedial plans apply to failures of an acute lethality test. Thus, no changes are being proposed.

Authorizations and Authorization Officers

• In 1997, a citizen noted that, when administration of the regulations is transferred to provinces under agreements and authorizations are being issued, there is no guarantee of proper consultation. A need for consultation with the federal Department of the Environment, in cases where the AO is a provincial official, was already proposed in the 1997 regulatory amendments proposal.

• The same citizen objected to possible sub-delegation of authority to provincial officials to receive EEM information required by the PPER, because this citizen believed that it may not be transmitted to the Government of Canada. This citizen also expressed concern that this may hinder enforcement and upset consistency of application. In response, it should be noted that this has not been an issue with existing or past agreements. In addition, federal-provincial administrative agreements require that the information received by the provincial government be transferred to the Government of Canada.

• An industry association commented that the AO should be specified as the one designated by federal-provincial administrative agreements, or, by default, the federal government. Provincial officials have already been identified in the past as AO, when an agreement is in place. In addition, a recent amendment to the PPER was published on January 1, 2003, to indicate that, for the three provincial officials who are identified, they are AO only when an agreement is in effect. This terminology was used so as to avoid having to make further amendments to re-identify the AO as a federal official every time an agreement terminates.

Environmental Effects Monitoring

• Industry associations and mills recommended retaining the four-year period for EEM cycles in place of the three-year proposal included in the June 2000 amendment proposal. They indicated that the four-year period would allow sufficient time to ensure proper review of the data of each EEM cycle, so that adjustments can be made to the EEM program, and to integrate the knowledge gained from the review into the design of subsequent EEM studies. An environmental group supported Environment Canada's proposal to return to a three-year cycle. The Department maintains the proposal to return to a three-year period from the four-year reporting period. Stakeholders were informed of the intention to restore the original three-year reporting period, in the RIAS for the 1999 regulatory amendment to the PPER, which introduced the four-year cycle. Environment Canada noted that, as a result of the scientific and technical review conducted following the first cycle, it is anticipated that only minor adjustments would be required for the EEM framework in the future, which could be accommodated within the three-year cycles allocated to conduct an EEM study. The scientific review of second-cycle EEM data, conducted by Environment Canada, confirmed that no major changes to the EEM program are anticipated in the near future.

• An industry association requested a "sunset" provision for the EEM program. In response, Environment Canada explained that the EEM program was designed to provide a long-term evaluation of effluent impacts requiring a minimum of several cycles (over 15-20 years), to allow a valid assessment of the conditions in the aquatic environment and to fully understand their significance. The results from the EEM program are reviewed at the end of each cycle, to ensure that the program is continuing to provide valuable information.

• In the June 2000 consultation, it was proposed to add a new requirement for mills or OSTFs having ceased to deposit effluent for three years or more, to conduct a pre-operational EEM biological study before they resume depositing effluent. An environmental group commented that all mills should do a pre-operational EEM biological study before depositing effluent, even if the mill has ceased to deposit effluent for a period that is less than three years. Some mills commented that they do not agree with the new proposal presented in June 2000, since there is insufficient time to conduct a pre-operational EEM biological study between the moment a decision is made to re-open a mill and the moment the mill resumes depositing effluent. Given the difficulty in conducting a pre-operational EEM biological study, Environment Canada has reconsidered this new requirement and has withdrawn the proposal. In addition, the PPER requirement to conduct a pre-operational EEM biological study for new mills or OSTFs has been removed.

• A number of industry associations, mills, provinces and consultants commented that the proposed definitions of "effect on the fish population" and "effect on the benthic invertebrate community" (benthic invertebrates are small aquatic bottom-dwelling animals whose diversity, abundance, etc. may provide information on the conditions of the fish habitat) are too limiting and do not take into consideration a number of factors. Environment Canada changed the above definitions for clarity purposes, to increase the scientific validity of the definitions, and to avoid any discretionary judgments on the data.

• Industry associations, mills and consultants expressed concern regarding the type, acceptability, and cost of alternative methods when fish population studies are not feasible. Mills further indicated that adequate guidance for conducting alternatives to the fish population studies was not available from Environment Canada. In response, the Department has prepared guidance on how to conduct alternative studies, and has structured EEM requirements to include the use of other alternatives, providing they are scientifically defensible.

• Mills and consultants raised concerns about the data assessment for benthic invertebrates and its limitations, the difficulties in using certain indices and their validity in certain situations (e.g., marine systems). Industry also asked for an exemption for benthic invertebrate population study in situations of high dilution, similar to the exemption for the fish population study. The proposed amendments clearly define the endpoints to be measured, and Environment Canada confirms, based on a peer-reviewed scientific study, that selected data measurements constitute a solid basis to determine effects. The Department has not included an exemption for benthic invertebrate sampling under situations of high dilution, because exposure of benthic invertebrates to effluent under these conditions is not an issue. Unlike fish, benthic invertebrates are sedentary organisms, and even when exposed to low concentrations of effluent, valid scientific information can be obtained and effects may be observed.

• Industry associations, mills, one province, consultants, and an environmental group provided numerous comments regarding the June 2000 proposal to trigger a fish tissue analysis based on dioxin and furan concentrations at a fraction of the dioxin and furan fish consumption guidelines established by Health Canada. Industry associations, mills, a province, and consultants indicated that the proposal was too stringent, and questioned the scientific justification for the proposed trigger. Environment Canada has considered these views and is proposing to trigger a fish tissue analysis based on two criteria: (i) the full value of the dioxin and furan fish consumption guidelines (established by Health Canada); and (ii) the presence of measurable concentrations of dioxins and furans in the effluent, as defined in the Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations.

• Mills provided comments on the suggested changes to the tainting evaluation. One mill questioned the triggers and the scientific validity of tainting studies, and another mill did not support the addition of other testing methods to existing ones. Acceptable methodologies for tainting studies are described in a technical guidance document (see footnote 8) issued by Environment Canada. Furthermore, the Department changed this requirement to ensure that any records of tainting are reported to the AO.

Off-Site Treatment Facility

• An OSTF commented that the formula for calculating its TSS allowable discharges in the 1997 regulatory amendments proposal would require OSTFs to install additional monitoring equipment to get data required for the calculation. This concern is resolved due to the current proposed change to the basis for calculating the TSS allowable discharges for OSTFs.

Mills indicated that the proposed formula for calculating OSTF allowable discharges produces more stringent allowable discharges for OSTFs compared to the formula used to establish allowable discharges for mills that deposit directly into Canadian fishery waters. Environmental groups stated that the formula would increase the TSS allowable discharges, and they did not support the change. Environment Canada clarifies that the proposed formula was developed because many mills sending effluent to OSTFs provide primary treatment prior to sending their effluent to OSTFs. This makes it impossible for OSTFs to comply with the TSS allowable discharges calculated on the basis of the TSS load in the effluent they receive from mills that deposit their effluent into OSTFs. Therefore, the proposed formula for calculating the TSS allowable discharges for OSTFs is in line with the current approach for setting TSS allowable discharges for mills that deposit directly into Canadian fishery waters. The current proposed change is therefore maintained.

Harmonization of Federal and Provincial Regulatory Requirements

• A number of industry associations, mills and provinces commented that efforts should be made to harmonize federal and provincial reporting requirements. In an effort to harmonize federal and provincial monitoring requirements, the proposed amendments already include a provision to permit the use of BOD and TSS test methods required by or authorized by the law of the province, when they are equivalent to the ones prescribed by the two Regulations.

In addition, it is noted that both the federal and provincial governments have the authority to legislate in the area of environmental protection. Consequently, there is a potential for the occurrence of differences in regulatory requirements and administrative duplication for the affected industry, when similar regulatory requirements are required by both governments. In order to reduce these differences and duplication, the three federal pulp and paper regulations (see footnote 9) were developed by a federal-provincial working group, in order to prevent the regulations at both levels of government, from causing undue administrative burdens on the industry, and to minimize differences in regulatory requirements across the country. Furthermore, to streamline the administration of the federal regulations, a number of federal-provincial administrative agreements affecting the pulp and paper industry have been negotiated and put in place. There are currently three administrative agreements in place: one in Alberta, one in Saskatchewan, and one in Quebec. These agreements allow the affected industry to meet certain regulatory requirements by responding to only one government level.

• An industry association, one province, and a few mills indicated that harmonization of federal and provincial regulations should be achieved by equivalency agreements, so as to allow mills and OSTFs to only be subject to one set of regulatory requirements. The Fisheries Act does not provide authority for concluding equivalency agreements. However, administrative agreements that are in place with three provinces are intended to reduce federal-provincial administrative duplication and provide a one-window approach for the pulp and paper industry.

Definitions

• Several comments were received regarding the definitions under section 2 of the PPER. As a result, some of the definitions have been rewritten to address the comments received and to improve their clarity.

Port Alberni Regulations

• One mill and one province supported the removal of the requirement to conduct dissolved oxygen (DO) monitoring in the Alberni Inlet. Environmental groups disagreed with this change, and suggested that all mills in Canada be required to monitor in their receiving waters. Environment Canada notes that a DO monitoring requirement was included in the Port Alberni Regulations, to address a local environmental problem at the Port Alberni mill. Given that the quality of the receiving water where the Port Alberni mill discharges its effluent has improved, and the provincial mill effluent discharge permit contains a DO monitoring requirement, which provides sufficient information on DO levels, the proposal to remove the DO monitoring requirement is maintained.

• The Port Alberni pulp mill supported the proposal to merge the Port Alberni Regulations with the PPER.

Comments Received Following the Pre-Publication of the Amendments Proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The proposed amendments were pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 28, 2003. Further information sessions were conducted shortly thereafter, to explain the proposal and to respond to questions. The pre-publication was followed by the 60-day public review period, during which comments were received from industry associations, individual mills, Aboriginal groups, environmental groups, EEM consultants, and an industry research group. These various commenters mainly supported the proposed amendments and suggested some changes. Several comments provided during the public review period were similar to those presented during the consultation period that took place prior to the pre-publication of the amendments proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I. All the comments received during the public review period were considered and taken into account during the development of the final regulatory text. Following the publication of the amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part II, information sessions are planned for interested parties, to provide an overview of the amendments. More detailed sessions are also planned for the affected facilities, to ensure that new requirements are well understood, thus promoting their compliance.

A summary of the major comments received during the public review period and how they have been addressed in the amendments is outlined below.

Monitoring

• An industry association and several mills indicated that the Daphnia magna test should not be used as a trigger to conduct a trout test, since there is no scientific correlation between Daphnia magna test failures and effects on rainbow trout. Environment Canada has considered this request, and believes that this change cannot be introduced before a full analysis is carried out, and adequate consultation conducted. This issue may need to be examined in future amendments.

Reporting and Reference Methods

• An industry association and several mills commented that there appears to be a duplication of the new requirement under paragraph 7(1)(c) of the amendments, to report failures of tests conducted on effluents, and the current requirement to report such failures from deposits out of the normal course of events under section 36 of the PPER. Pursuant to subsection 38(4) of the Fisheries Act, the duty to report a deposit out of the normal course of events only arises when the following criteria are met: there has been a deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish or a serious and imminent danger thereof, and this results or may reasonably be expected to result in damage or danger to fish habitat, fish, or the use of fisheries resources. Also, there is no duplication of reporting, since the report required under paragraph 7(1)(c) does not apply to deposits out of the normal course of events. Therefore, no change has been made.

• Industry associations and several mills reiterated their concern about the current non-acutely lethal requirement being a barrier to water conservation efforts. During the public review period, Environment Canada met with a company to discuss this issue. The Department requested documentation of the problem and a description of the benefits to the environment, if water reduction levels were to be achieved beyond those currently in place. This information needs to be provided before consideration can be given to this matter. As none of the requested information has been provided by industry, no change has been made to the amendments.

• Industry associations and several mills continued to ask for clarification on what is involved in a site risk analysis, which is one of the elements that was to be included in an ERP, as identified in the amendments proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I. To clarify this requirement, the reference to risk analysis was removed in the amendments, and has been replaced by a description which includes: an identification of any possible deposit out of the normal course of events and of any possible damage or danger to fish habitat, or fish, or the use of fisheries resources; and a description of the measures to be used to prevent, prepare for and respond to such a deposit.

• An Aboriginal group indicated that notification requirements of an ERP should extend to Aboriginals groups. To clarify the proposal that was pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Environment Canada modified the requirement for the content of the ERP, by specifying that the notification procedures must also include the measures to be taken to notify members of the public who may be adversely affected by a deposit out of the normal course of events. Thus, notification of Aboriginal groups that may be adversely affected by such a deposit would be done through this new requirement.

• An industry association and several mills expressed concern over the possible duplication and discrepancy of the ERP requirement under the amendments and that of the newly introduced Environmental Emergency Regulations made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). The environmental emergency plan required under the Environmental Emergency Regulations, pertains to the substances (see footnote 10) identified in Schedule 1 of that Regulation. In contrast, the ERP of the amendments relates to the release of deleterious substances that may enter water frequented by fish, in the event of a deposit out of normal course of events. In cases where a substance for which an environmental emergency plan is required under the Environmental Emergency Regulations is also a deleterious substance that may enter water frequented by fish, the environmental emergency plan prepared under the Environmental Emergency Regulations would also meet the requirement of the ERP required under the amendments, provided the environmental emergency plan contains all the elements specified in section 11 of the amendments. However, an ERP would still be required to be prepared under the amendments, for the other deleterious substances. Furthermore, in an effort to harmonize the emergency plan requirements under CEPA 1999 and the Fisheries Act, the description of what an ERP must contain under the amendments has been reworded with similar terminology as that used in the Environmental Emergency Regulations.

Environmental Effects Monitoring

• Industry associations and several mills reiterated their concerns regarding the need to keep the four-year period for EEM cycles, to allow sufficient time to review data and plan the next study. Environment Canada has considered these views and maintained in the amendments the three-year cycle that was proposed in the amendments proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I, so that potential effects identified through the EEM studies can be addressed in a timely fashion. Furthermore, the three-year cycle provides sufficient time to review data, and balances the need for frequent data collection with the costs and operational aspects.

• Industry associations and two mills were of the view that the objective of the EEM program had changed from assessing the adequacy of the PPER, to evaluating the effects on fish, fish habitat and the use of fisheries resources, and they were in disagreement with this. The industry perceived that the objective of the EEM has changed, and, as a result, the focus of the EEM program has changed from a monitoring program to an ongoing research program. Thus, an industry association suggested that the EEM program become voluntary. Environment Canada clarifies that the overall objective of the EEM has not changed, and continues to be the assessment of the adequacy of the PPER. EEM provides information on the potential effects of effluent on the fish population, fish tissue and benthic invertebrate community. The adequacy of the regulations will be assessed by evaluating the information provided by the EEM program, along with information from other factors such as ecological, technological, social, and economic. Furthermore, Environment Canada considers that voluntary participation in the EEM program cannot be accommodated, as it may jeopardize the continuity and uniformity of the data collected that are critical for the assessment of the effects of effluent on aquatic ecosystems.

• Following the pre-publication of the amendments proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I, comments similar to those made during the consultation period were made by industry associations, mills and a consultant, regarding the restriction of the proposed definitions of "effect on the fish population" and "effect on the benthic invertebrate community". The commenters also requested further clarification on how effects would be interpreted. Environment Canada explains that the measurements selected in EEM constitute scientifically important endpoints, and are used to trigger the subsequent EEM monitoring studies that need to be conducted by mills and OSTFs. The Department has made editorial changes to improve the clarity of these definitions, and to reflect that the same effect must be observed in the two most recent EEM studies, in order to require mills and OSTFs to assess the magnitude and extent of the effect.

A consultant indicated that the definition of "effect on the fish population" should allow for the use of gradient designs in the same manner as it is allowed in the definition of "effect on the benthic invertebrate community". Environment Canada has adjusted the definition of "effect on the fish population" to allow for the use of gradient designs.

Harmonization of Federal and Provincial Regulatory Requirements

• Industry associations and several mills reiterated their comments about the need to further harmonize federal-provincial reporting requirements. An industry association indicated that the Fisheries Act should be amended to allow for equivalency agreements. As described in the previous section dealing with comments received during the consultation period, every effort has already been made to harmonize federal and provincial requirements. With respect to the request to amend the Fisheries Act, this is beyond the scope of the amendments.

Port Alberni Regulations

• An Aboriginal group and an environmental group disagreed with the proposal to remove the federal DO monitoring requirement for the Port Alberni mill. Environment Canada has considered these views and, instead of removing the requirement to conduct DO monitoring for the Port Alberni mill, kept this requirement in the amendments. However, given the improved quality of the receiving water where the Port Alberni mill discharges its effluent, the DO monitoring requirement in the amendments has been reduced in terms of extent and frequency, to reflect improved conditions in the Alberni Inlet.

Changes to the Consultation Section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement Following Pre-Publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

Editorial changes were made to "Comments Received on the Proposed Amendments Prior to their Pre-Publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I" under the Consultation section. These changes aim to clarify those consultations without compromising the integrity of the comments.

Compliance and Enforcement

Since the amendments are promulgated under subsection 36(5) of the Fisheries Act, for its enforcement of the amendments, Environment Canada fishery inspectors and fishery officers will apply the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act, which Environment Canada and DFO published jointly in November 2001. The Policy outlines measures designed to promote compliance, including education, information, promoting of technology development and consultation on the development of proposed regulations. It also describes enforcement activities and sets out guiding principles.

The Policy also sets out the range of possible responses to alleged violations: warnings, directions in the event of deposits of harmful substances, injunctions, and criminal prosecution. In addition, the document explains when Environment Canada will resort to civil suits by the Crown for cost recovery.

If, following an inspection, investigation or the report of a suspected violation, a fishery inspector or fishery officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has been committed, the inspector or officer will select the appropriate response to the alleged violation, based on the following criteria:

• Nature of the alleged violation: This includes consideration of the damage or potential damage to fish habitat, the fishery resource, and/or the risks associated with human use of fish; the intent of the alleged violator; whether it is a repeated occurrence; and whether there were attempts by the alleged violator to conceal information or otherwise circumvent the objectives and requirements of the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act and any accompanying regulations.

• Effectiveness in achieving the desired result with the alleged violator: The desired result is compliance within the shortest possible time and with no further repetition of the violation. Factors to be considered include the violator's history of compliance with the habitat protection and/or pollution prevention provisions; the alleged violator's willingness to cooperate with enforcement personnel; evidence and extent of corrective action already taken; and any enforcement actions by other federal, provincial or territorial authorities.

• Consistency: Environment Canada fishery inspectors and fishery officers will consider how similar situations in Canada have been handled, when deciding on the measure to be taken to enforce the Fisheries Act and/or its accompanying Regulations.

Contacts

Ms. Marie-Louise Geadah
Forest Products Division
National Office of Pollution Prevention
Pollution Prevention Directorate
Environment Canada
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: (819) 953-1129
FAX: (819) 994-7762
E-mail: marie-louise.geadah@ec.gc.ca

Ms. Céline Labossière
Regulatory and Economic Analysis Branch
Economic and Regulatory Affairs Directorate
Environment Canada
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: (819) 997-2377
FAX: (819) 997-2769
E-mail: celine.labossiere@ec.gc.ca

Footnote a

SOR/92-269

Footnote 1

SOR/92-638

Footnote 2

These key elements can be found in subsection 11(1) of the amendments.

Footnote 3

The two Regulations require the EEM be conducted in accordance with the EEM/1997/1 document. This document indicates that the regulatory requirements for a given sector would be found in the annexes to the document, and that the EEM studies shall be conducted in accordance with the relevant annex for the sector.

Footnote 4

Annex 1 to EEM/1997/1 was developed to specify the regulatory requirements for conducting EEM studies applicable to pulp and paper mills.

Footnote 5

The November 1997 draft proposal is posted at the following Web site address: http//www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/pandp/en/P1997.cfm.

Footnote 6

The June 2000 proposed additional amendments are posted at the following Web site address: http//www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/pandp/en/P2000.cfm.

Footnote 7

Emergency Preparedness and Response (CAN/CSA — Z731-03), published by the Canadian Standards Associations in October 2003.
Guidelines for Preparing of Reviewing an Emergency Response Plan for a Canadian Pulp and Paper Mill (EPS 1/PF/2 - November 1994), published by EC.

Footnote 8

Pulp and Paper Technical Guidance for Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring, EEM/1998/1, published by EC on April 1998.

Footnote 9

Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations made under the Fisheries Act.
Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furan Regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999).
Pulp and Paper Mill Defoamer and Wood Chip Regulations made under CEPA 1999.

Footnote 10

The substances identified in Schedule 1 of the Environmental Emergency Regulations, are substances that are hazardous to the environment and/or human health in an environmental emergency.

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with hypertext language (HTML). Its content is very similar except for the footnotes, the symbols and the tables.


	Top of page

Maintained by the Canada Gazette Directorate	Important notices

Updated: 2006-11-23