Modernization of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations – Updated detailed proposal for consultation - January 2024
Alternate format
List of abbreviations and acronyms
- AOX
- Adsorbable organic halides
- BMS
- Biological monitoring study
- BOD
- Biochemical oxygen demand
- CES
- Critical effect size
- COD
- Chemical oxygen demand
- DO
- Dissolved oxygen
- ECCC
- Environment and Climate Change Canada
- EEM
- Environmental Effects Monitoring
- ENGOs
- Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations
- ISO
- International Organization for Standardization
- kg
- Kilogram
- L
- Liter
- mg
- Milligram
- N
- Nitrogen
- P
- Phosphorus
- pH
- Potential hydrogen
- PNECs
- Predicted no effect concentrations
- PPER
- Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations
- RPR
- Reference production rate
- SS
- Suspended solids
- T
- Ton
- TDS
- Total dissolved solids
- TOC
- Total organic carbon
- °C
- Degree Celsius
1.0 Introduction
The 1992 Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (PPER) were put in place to streamline the existing 1971 regulations, improve the protection of fish and their habitat, and widen their application to all mills. The effluent limits were developed based on the performance of a group of Canadian mills that were considered good environmental performers in the late 1980s, and what was achievable through their secondary effluent treatment system at the time. Although portions of the PPER have been amended over the last 30 years, a complete review of the regulations has not been done.
In September 2017, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) shared the document entitled Proposed Modernization of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations – Consultation Document with industry, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), Indigenous Peoples, provincial governments, and other interested parties. The document sought input on 4 broad themes:
- Scope of regulations
- Environmental Protection Measures
- PPER Administration
- Compliance and Administrative Requirements
In May 2019, ECCC published a second document entitled Proposed Modernization of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations – Detailed Proposal for Consultation, which included the input received on the 2017 Proposed Modernization of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations – Consultation Document. The Detailed Proposal for Consultation proposed the following changes to the PPER:
- widened the scope of the PPER to include facilities producing non-traditional products from wood, other plant material, pulp or a pulping process
- improved environmental protection by:
- lowering effluent limits for currently regulated substances
- adding effluent limits for additional substances, temperature and pH
- simplified administration of the PPER by:
- Improving the efficacy and efficiency of Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) requirements by:
- focusing biological monitoring requirements on the effects that are potentially of a higher risk to the environment
- adding quarterly effluent characterization and water quality monitoring requirements
- reducing the time spent by regulatees on investigation studies
- requiring the submission of a study design by all mills
- requiring the implementation of solutions identified in EEM studies
- clarifying the process and effluent limits for idled, closing and closed mills
- revising effluent limits for off-site landfills and expanding the scope to landfills owned by a third party
- Improving the efficacy and efficiency of Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) requirements by:
- modernized methods and schedule for monitoring and reporting by:
- including requirements for effluent characterization and water quality monitoring
- incorporating a pH stabilization protocol to be used in conjunction with the existing test method for acute lethality
- updating requirements for analytical methods
- updating schedule for requirements for compliance monitoring and reporting
The modernization of the PPER was initiated because:
- EEM studies submitted under the PPER have shown that the effluents from 70% of pulp and paper mills are impacting fish and/or fish habitat, and that the impacts at 55% of these mills pose a potentially higher risk to the environment
- the Canadian industry is diversifying the products made from wood and other plant materials to include non-traditional products such as nanocrystalline cellulose, lignin and hemicellulose
- what is achievable through process control and effluent treatment has improved since 1992 when the PPER were put in place, and best technologies and techniques are well documented
Following the publication of the Proposed Modernization of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations – Detailed Proposal for Consultation in 2019, ECCC held 45 consultation sessions and received feedback from interested parties. ECCC has since considered all feedback received, and is proposing the following updates to the modernization proposal outlined in this document. ECCC has analyzed the current state of the Canadian pulp and paper sector using all available regulatory data collected under the PPER from 2012 to 2022 and data provided by our provincial partners under their respective regulatory framework. This document also provides additional information to clarify certain aspects of the proposal.
2.0 Updates to scope of regulations
2.1 Finished product definition
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed to change the definition of “Finished Product” to mean pulp, paper, cellulose-based and sugar-based products that has completed the production process at a mill.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing to remove the sugar-based products from the proposed definition of finished products.
“Finished product” means pulp, paper and cellulose-based product that has completed the production process at a mill.
Mills producing products not captured by the finished product definition could apply for the proposed supplementary discharge allocation described in section 3.3.
ECCC took into consideration:
- clarifying the definition of finished products
- ensuring that the definition of finished products covers products that have an impact on mill effluent
3.0 Updates to environmental protection measures
3.1 Intensity factors for BOD, SS and COD for operating mills
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed to review intensity effluent factors for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), and add an intensity factor for chemical oxygen demand (COD). These effluent limits aimed to further improve environmental protection, with existing secondary treatment while not requiring tertiary treatment.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing to update the proposed intensity factors for BOD, SS and COD to reflect what is achievable using a well operated, maintained and monitored secondary effluent treatment system. ECCC is proposing to update the limits for SS and COD for chemical mills, as well as the limits for SS and BOD for mechanical mills, shown in bold below.
| Mill category | Daily BOD (kg/t) | Monthly BOD (kg/t) | Daily SS (kg/t) | Monthly SS (kg/t) | Daily COD (kg/t) | Monthly COD (kg/t) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | 4.25 | 2.6 | 7.65 | 4.6 | 80 | 48 |
| Mechanical | 1.8 | 1.1 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 50 | 30 |
| Paper Recycling Papermaking | 1.25 | 0.75 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 12.5 | 7.5 |
ECCC took into consideration:
- the advice from expert consultants that a well operated, maintained and monitored secondary effluent treatment system should achieve an annual average concentration of 20 mg/L or below of BOD and 30 mg/L or below of SS
- that a safety factor of 50% should be added to the proposed limits to account for shutdowns and upsets
- that mills have reduced their water use in recent years
3.2 Authorization for high-brightness mechanical mills
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed the introduction of 3 mill process categories: chemical, mechanical and paper recycling. High-brightness mechanical mills were included under the mechanical mill category.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing a new authorization for mechanical mills producing high-brightness pulp (>65% ISO) that meet certain criteria to have higher BOD and SS effluent limits.
Criteria to be eligible for this authorization include:
- not being able to meet the effluent limits for mechanical mills
- demonstrate with data that all measures to reduce effluent BOD and SS have been implemented
- demonstrate that the treatment system achieves a minimal reduction rate of 90% for BOD and SS and 60% for COD
The authorization would allow the lowest effluent standard that can be achieved by the mill, not exceeding the following intensity factors:
- Daily SS: 6.1 kg/t
- Monthly SS: 3.6 kg/t
- Daily BOD: 5.4 kg/t
- Monthly BOD: 3.3 kg/t
- Daily COD: 50 kg/t
- Monthly COD: 30 kg/t
The authorization would be valid for 5 years and mills could reapply as necessary.
ECCC took into consideration that:
- the production of high-brightness mechanical pulp results in a larger quantity of BOD than the typical mechanical mill
- requiring mills producing high-brightness mechanical pulp to meet the effluent limits for typical mechanical mills could require tertiary treatment
3.3 Adjustment to RPR for biotransforming mills
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed allowing mills producing bioproducts to apply for an interim reference production rate (RPR) when the production of bioproducts accounted for more than 25% of the total RPR and increased the organic loading to the effluent treatment system by more than 25%.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing to allow mills producing bioproduct(s) to apply for a supplementary discharge allocation.
- The supplementary discharge allocation would be based on the BOD, COD and SS loading to the effluent treatment system resulting from the production of the bioproduct(s)
- To qualify:
- mills would be required to meet applicable limits prior to application
- the bioproduct(s) would have to result in a minimum 10% increase in BOD, COD and SS loading to the effluent treatment system above the loading from conventional finished products
- Mills would apply for the allocation once, and the allocation limit would be re-calculated annually based on the previous year’s daily loading data
| Substance | BOD (daily) | BOD (monthly) | SS (daily) | SS (monthly) | COD (daily) | COD (monthly) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed (kg) | 0.250 × Bo | 0.150 × Bo x D | 0.250 × So | 0.150 × So x D | 0.8 x Co | 0.6 x Co x D |
- Bo is the averageFootnote 1 daily BOD loading resulting from biotransformation production
- So is the averageFootnote 1 daily SS loading resulting from biotransformation production
- Co is the averageFootnote 1 daily COD loading resulting from biotransformation production
- D is the number of days in the month
- For mills producing only bioproducts, they would have to submit:
- plans outlining the production process
- a description of steps taken to reduce BOD, SS and COD at the production stage
- a description of the effluent treatment system and its capacity to meet the required limits
- For effluent containing one or more substances from Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as a result of biotransformation, the effluent would not be able to exceed the predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs) of those substances
ECCC took into consideration:
- comments indicating that the use of an interim RPR to accommodate biotransformation would present implementation challenges when regulating biotransformation processes, given the unknown nature of the deleterious substance loadings from these processes
- what is achievable using a well operated, maintained and monitored effluent treatment system
3.4 Concentration-based limits for phosphorus and nitrogen
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed to implement weekly maximum average, and monthly maximum average concentration-based limits for nitrogen and phosphorus.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing to update the concentration-based limits for phosphorus to reflect what is achievable using a well operated, maintained and monitored secondary effluent treatment system, shown in bold below.
| Mill category | Total phosphorus weekly maximum average (mg/L) |
Total phosphorus monthly maximum average (mg/L) |
Total nitrogen weekly maximum average (mg/L) |
Total nitrogen monthly maximum average (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All processes | 2.5 | 2.0 | 20 | 15 |
ECCC took into consideration that:
- proposed concentration-based limits should align with what is technically achievable, and account for treatment system variability
3.5 Temperature limit
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed to limit effluent temperature for all final effluents for all mills to a maximum daily temperature of 40°C and a maximum monthly average temperature of 35°C.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing to limit effluent temperature for all final effluents to a maximum daily temperature of 45°C, with no requirement for a monthly temperature limit.
ECCC took into consideration:
- optimal biological treatment temperature for a well operated, maintained and monitored secondary effluent treatment system
- effluent temperature fluctuations
- the water quality temperature guidelines for various Canadian fish species
3.6 pH limit
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed to limit final effluent pH to within a range of 6.0 to 9.5 for freshwater receiving environments, and 6.5 to 9.2 for marine receiving environments.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing to limit final effluent pH for all mill effluents in all receiving environments to the range of 6.0 to 9.5.
ECCC took into consideration:
- comments received during consultation that the marine range may not be achievable
- aligning with other modern Fisheries Act regulations such as the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluents Regulations
4.0 Updates to PPER administration
4.1 New provisions for closed and closing mills
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed to require a two-phase procedure for mills planning to close:
- Phase 1: Preparation for closure
- Phase 2: Closure of mill
What is being updated
Phase 1 Clarifications:
- Following the public announcement of closure, a mill will be given a period of time (e.g. 30 days) to notify ECCC, and an additional period of time (e.g. 45 days) to prepare and submit a closure plan that would be required before the process of closing the mill began
- ECCC will provide a list of eligible 'key pieces of equipment' for removal to inform the mill closure plan
ECCC took into consideration:
- comments that mills are often not able to disclose their intent to close until this information is first released to the public
4.2 New provisions for idled mills
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed to require the owner or operator of a mill to notify ECCC when the mill has stopped or is expected to stop production for 100 consecutive days or more. The mill would then enter idled mill status.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing to extend the requirement for a mill to notify when it has stopped or is expected to stop production from 100 consecutive days to 6 consecutive months.
ECCC took into consideration:
- comments that some major mill upgrades or investments may take longer than 100 consecutive days to complete, and during an extended maintenance shutdown, a mill should not be considered idled as it would intend to restart production once the maintenance is complete
4.3 Study designs for environmental effects monitoring (EEM)
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed that all mills submit study designs for biological monitoring and investigation studies.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing that mills consider and include information and data provided by Indigenous people when developing the design of required studies. The intent of this update is to provide a mechanism to seek Indigenous communities’ perspective on the site-specific elements of EEM study design to help inform how and where these studies should be conducted to best assess potential effects of mills’ effluent on fish, fish habitat, and use of fish by humans.
Each mill would:
- inform and invite Indigenous peoples that use the waters in which the mill discharges effluents, to share any information or data they feel is relevant
- describe how the information provided was taken into account in the design of any required studies
- continue to take into account the information and data shared by Indigenous peoples in the design of any subsequent studies
ECCC took into consideration:
- comments indicating that some Indigenous groups would like to be directly involved in local EEM studies
4.4 Water quality monitoring and effluent characterization
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed that mills characterize their final effluent and conduct water quality monitoring studies. The list of substances to be measured as part of these 2 requirements was not specified.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing to require the following list of substances/parameters be measured through effluent characterization and/or water quality monitoring.
Following is a list of substances/parameters measured through effluent characterization and water quality monitoring:
- Conductivity (freshwater/estuarine)
- Hardness (freshwater/estuarine)
- Alkalinity (freshwater/estuarine)
- Temperature
- pH (freshwater/estuarine)
- Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
- Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
- Adsorbable organic halidesFootnote 2 (AOX)
- Hydrocarbons C10-C50
- Total Phenols
- TriarylmethaneFootnote 3
- Aluminum
- Arsenic
- Boron
- Cadmium
- Chromium
- Cobalt
- Copper
- Iron
- Lead
- Manganese
- MercuryFootnote 4
- Nickel
- Selenium
- Silver
- Thallium
- Vanadium
- Zinc
Following is a list of substances/parameters measured through water quality monitoring only:
- Deleterious substances (TSS, COD, P, N)
- Dissolved oxygen (DO)
- Water depth
- Salinity (estuarine/marine)
- Turbidity
ECCC took into consideration:
- substances that are important to assess performance of pulp and paper effluent treatment
- substances used or generated by mills known to potentially impact fish and fish habitat
4.5 Investigation studies and implementation of solutions
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed one study period of 3 years to determine the cause of environmental effects of effluent and, when applicable, to identify solutions for those effects.
In addition, ECCC proposed that mills be required to implement the solutions they identified to mitigate the environmental effect(s) of their effluent, within a 3-year timeframe. After 3 years, studies to re-assess effects would be required.
What is being clarified
ECCC is providing more details to clarify the proposed investigation studies and implementation of solutions requirements.
Timelines
At the registration of the modernized PPER, biological monitoring study (BMS) requirements would be paused for all mills. All other EEM requirements would come into force at the registration of the regulations. The following requirements would restart when the new limits come into force:
- 3 years after registration or
- Up to 5 years after registration for mills with a transitional authorizationFootnote 5
After the new limits are in force, the first biological monitoring study report would be due in 3 years.
Results of 2 consecutive biological monitoring studies would determine the overall mill effect designation, which set the type and timing of subsequent studies. The first biological monitoring study results after the registration of the modernized PPER would be used in conjunction with the previous biological monitoring study results to reassess the overall mill effect designation.
The following list indicates the type and timing of the subsequent studies.
Type of study and timelines for study report submission set by designation
- Confirmed no effect designation: Biological monitoring study due 6 years after previous report was due
- UnconfirmedFootnote 6 effect designation: Biological monitoring study due 3 years after previous report was due
- Confirmed effect less than CES designation: Biological monitoring study due 3 years after previous report was due
- Confirmed effect equal or greater than CES, or without CES designation: Investigation Study due 3 years after previous report was due
Investigation studies
Investigation studies would include a study to identify the causes of the effects and, where applicable, an identification of possible solutions to mitigate the effects. If there are multiple effects, mills would be required to identify causes for each effect and, where applicable, solutions for each effect.
Implementation of solutions
Starting when the investigation study reports are due, mills would be subject to the implementation of solution(s) requirements:
1. 3 months after investigation study reports are due, the Declaration of Solution Implementation Plan submission, a short document with a proposed ECCC template, would be required. It would include:
- A description of the proposed solutions
- The timeframe for implementing the solutions
- What effects are being addressed by the solutions
- How the solutions would help mitigate the effects
2. The Declaration That Solutions Have Been Implemented would be submitted once the solution is fully implemented. It would include:
- A description of the implemented solutions
- The date when the solution was fully implemented
If the solution(s) has not been fully implemented within 3 years, an annual interim progress report would be required until the solution is fully implemented and the final declaration has been submitted. It would include:
- An update on the timeframe for implementing the solutions
- If applicable, any change to the description of the proposed solutions
- If applicable, any change on how the solutions would help mitigate the causes of the effects
Reassessment of effects
The biological monitoring studies assessing effects would resume 3 years after the investigation study reports are due, regardless of the completion of the implementation of solutions. The new biological monitoring study results would be used in conjunction with the previous biological monitoring study results to reassess the overall mill effect designation.
ECCC took into consideration:
- Comments received requesting more clarification on proposed investigation studies and implementation of solutions
Figure 1. Type of required studies and associated timelines for report submission
Long description for Figure 1
Figure 1. Type of required studies and associated timelines for report submission.
This flow chart shows the progression through the environmental effects monitoring (EEM) biological monitoring study (BMS) requirements and associated timelines once the amended PPER has been registered. Once the amended PPER has been registered and the limits have been in force for 3 years, the first BMS report will be due. If a mill has a 2-year Transitional Authorization, the first BMS report will be due 5 years after the amended PPER is registered. Once the BMS is completed, it will be compared to the last BMS study completed prior to the registration of the amended PPER. Based on the overall mill effect designation, a mill will take one of three pathways in the biological monitoring cycle.
- The first outcome is that there is no confirmed effect (i.e. the 2 consecutive BMS reports show no statistical effect on fish or fish habitat endpoint indicators). If there is no confirmed effect, the mill receives a 3-year break from BMS and the next report would be due at the end of the subsequent BMS period, 6 years after the confirmed no effect designation.
- The second outcome is that there is an unconfirmed effect designation (i.e. the 2 consecutive BMS reports differ with one showing an effect result and the other showing no effects), or there is a confirmed effect that is below the critical effect size (CES) (i.e. the 2 consecutive BMS reports both show an effect below CES). In this case, the next BMS study report would be due at the end of the next 3-year cycle.
- The third outcome is that there is a confirmed effect above CES or a confirmed effect in an indicator without an associated CES (i.e. the 2 consecutive BMS studies both show an effect result above CES or in an indicator without a CES). In this case, the mill would begin an investigation study period where they would investigate both causes and potential solutions for all identified effects. The investigation study report would be due at the end of the 3-year period. After the investigation study report is submitted, the mill would begin implementing their proposed solutions. After the 3 year period to implement their solutions, the BMS cycle would resume and a BMS report would be due at the end of the next 3 year period.
The BMS cycle continues to repeat and mills will be subject to the requirements based on their next effect designation outcomes.
4.6 Requirements for off-site landfills
What was proposed
In 2019, ECCC proposed to include specific concentration-based limits for BOD, SS and COD in effluents (leachate) generated by all off-site landfills. ECCC also proposed to expand the scope of the PPER to regulate off-site landfills containing mill residues owned or operated by a third party whose purpose is to collect mill residues.
What is being updated
ECCC is proposing the following:
- mill residue would be defined as: bark, wood residue, pulp, paper and paperboard discards, ash from a combustion facility, sludge from process water treatment, de-inking sludge, lime sludge, green liquor dregs, residues from lime slaking and any other residue from the pulp or paper product manufacturing process that is not a hazardous material
- off-site landfills would be subject to the PPER for one year after the landfill stops accepting mill residue and then would be subject to the Fisheries Act
- the monitoring frequency for off-site landfills is presented in section 5.1 below
- the proposed off-site landfill requirements would apply to all off-site landfills discharging directly to the environment that treat only pulp and paper mill residue (not landfills accepting waste from multiple sources)
- remove the proposed requirements for a daily and weekly limit
- remove the proposed limits for temperature, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen
The proposed effluent limits for off-site landfills are now to include only the following:
| Monthly maximum average BOD (mg/L) |
Monthly maximum average SS (mg/L) |
Monthly maximum average COD (mg/L) |
pH range | Acute lethality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 30 | 180 | 6.0 to 9.5 | non-acutely lethal |