ARCHIVED — Vol. 146, No. 15 — July 18, 2012

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Registration

SOR/2012-139 June 29, 2012

FISHERIES ACT

Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations

P.C. 2012-942 June 28, 2012

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to subsection 36(5) and paragraphs 43(g.1) (see footnote a), (g.2) (see footnote b) and (h) of the Fisheries Act (see footnote c), hereby makes the annexed Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations.

WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

INTERPRETATION

Definitions

1. The following definitions apply in these Regulations.

“Act”
« Loi »

“Act” means the Fisheries Act.

“acutely lethal”
« létalité aiguë »

“acutely lethal”, in relation to effluent, means that the effluent at 100% concentration kills, during a 96-hour period, more than 50% of the rainbow trout subjected to it.

“aquatic species”
« espèce aquatique »

“aquatic species” includes an aquatic species as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act.

“authorization officer”
« agent d’autorisation »

“authorization officer”, in respect of a province set out in column 1 of Schedule 1 and for each type of owner set out in column 2 of a wastewater system located in the province, means the holder of the position set out in column 3.

“blackwater”
« eaux-vannes »

“blackwater” means used water from sanitary appliances that contains human fecal matter or human urine.

“carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demanding matter” or “CBOD matter”
« matières exerçant une demande biochimique en oxygène de la partie carbonée » ou « matière exerçant une DBOC »

“carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demanding matter” or “CBOD matter” means carbonaceous matter that consumes, by biochemical oxidation, oxygen dissolved in water.

“combined sewer”
« égout unitaire »

“combined sewer” means a sewer that is designed to collect surface runoff and stormwater in such a manner that it mixes with wastewater referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition “wastewater” or any combination of wastewater referred to in those paragraphs.

“effluent”
« effluent »

“effluent” means wastewater that is deposited from a wastewater system.

“final discharge point”
« point de rejet final »

“final discharge point” means the point, other than an overflow point, of a wastewater system beyond which its owner or operator no longer exercises control over the quality of the wastewater before it is deposited as effluent in water or a place.

“greywater”
« eaux grises »

“greywater” means used water, other than blackwater, from sanitary appliances or from other appliances in a kitchen or laundry.

“hydraulic retention time”
« temps de rétention hydraulique »

“hydraulic retention time”, in relation to a wastewater system, means the average period during which wastewater is retained for treatment within the wastewater system.

“influent”
« affluent »

“influent” means wastewater entering a wastewater system.

“overflow point”
« point de débordement »

“overflow point” means a point of a wastewater system via which excess wastewater may be deposited in water or a place and beyond which its owner or operator no longer exercises control over the quality of wastewater before it is deposited as effluent.

“point of entry”
« point d’entrée »

“point of entry”, in relation to the final discharge point or an overflow point of a wastewater system, means

  • (a) the point where effluent is deposited in water frequented by fish via the final discharge point or the overflow point, as the case may be; or

  • (b) any point where the effluent enters that water from the place where it was deposited via the final discharge point or the overflow point, as the case may be.

“previous calendar year”
« année civile précédente »

“previous calendar year”, in respect of a given period and a wastewater system, means the most recent calendar year during which effluent was deposited via the system’s final discharge point that ended before the given period.

“previous month”
« mois précédent »

“previous month”, in respect of a given period and a wastewater system, means the most recent month during which effluent was deposited via the system’s final discharge point that ended before the given period.

“previous quarter”
« trimestre précédent »

“previous quarter”, in respect of a given period and a wastewater system, means the most recent quarter during which effluent was deposited via the system’s final discharge point that ended before the given period.

“Procedure for pH Stabilization EPS 1/RM/50”
« Procédure de stabilisation du pH SPE 1/ RM/50 »

“Procedure for pH Stabilization EPS 1/RM/50” means the Procedure for pH Stabilization During the Testing of Acute Lethality of Wastewater Effluent to Rainbow Trout (EPS 1/RM/50), March 2008, published by the Department of the Environment, as amended from time to time.

“protected species”
« espèce protegée »

“protected species” means a wildlife species as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act that is

  • (a) a species at risk as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act or is a species that is listed in Schedule 1 to that Act; or

  • (b) a species that is protected, or classified as an endangered species or a threatened species as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act, under the laws of a province.

“quarter”
« trimestre »

“quarter”, in respect of a year, means any of the four periods of three months that begin on the first day of January, April, July and October.

“Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13”
« Méthode de Référence SPE 1/RM/13 »

“Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13” means the Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Rainbow Trout (EPS 1/RM/13 Second Edition), December 2000 with May 2007 amendments, published by the Department of the Environment, as amended from time to time.

“sanitary sewer”
« égout sanitaire »

“sanitary sewer” means a sewer that is designed to collect wastewater referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition “wastewater” or any combination of wastewater referred to in those paragraphs.

“suspended solids”
« matières en suspension »

“suspended solids” means any solid matter contained in effluent that is retained on a filter of 2.0 micrometre (μm) or smaller pore size.

“total residual chlorine”
« chlore résiduel total »

“total residual chlorine” means the sum of free chlorine and combined chlorine, including inorganic chloramines.

“wastewater”
« eaux usées »

“wastewater” means

  • (a) blackwater;

  • (b) greywater that is mixed with blackwater;

  • (c) used water — other than blackwater and greywater — from an industrial, commercial or institutional facility that is mixed with blackwater; or

  • (d) surface runoff and stormwater that is mixed with blackwater.

“wastewater system”
« système d’assainissement »

“wastewater system” means any work or undertaking, at least part of which is located on land, that is used for the collection and deposit of wastewater, whether or not the wastewater is treated, and includes a site that contains a wastewater lagoon.

APPLICATION

Application

2. (1) These Regulations apply in respect of a wastewater system that, when it deposits effluent via its final discharge point, deposits a deleterious substance prescribed in section 5 in water or a place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act and that

  • (a) is designed to collect an average daily volume of 100 m3 or more of influent; or

  • (b) during any calendar year, collects an average daily volume of 100 m3 or more of influent.

Annual exceptions

(2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), these Regulations do not, for the subsequent calendar year, apply in respect of a wastewater system referred to in that paragraph that, during a calendar year, collected an average daily volume of less than 100 m3 of influent.

Non-application — areas

(3) These Regulations do not apply in respect of a wastewater system located

  • (a) in the Northwest Territories;

  • (b) in Nunavut; or

  • (c) north of the 54th parallel in Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador.

Non-application — industrial, commercial or institutional influent

(4) These Regulations do not apply in respect of a wastewater system that is located on the site of an industrial, commercial or institutional facility if the wastewater system is designed to collect influent whose volume consists of less than 50% blackwater and greywater combined.

Non-application — pulp and paper mills

(5) These Regulations do not apply in respect of a mill as defined in section 2 of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.

Types of wastewater systems

3. For the purpose of these Regulations, there are two types of wastewater systems, as follows:

  • (a) an intermittent wastewater system, namely, one with a hydraulic retention time of at least 90 days that deposits effluent via its final discharge point during at most four periods per calendar year, each of which is separated from every other period by at least seven clear days during which no deposit occurs; and

  • (b) a continuous wastewater system, namely, any wastewater system other than an intermittent wastewater system.

Consolidated wastewater systems

4. (1) If an owner of at least 10 wastewater systems — none of which treats its wastewater in a manner that would permit the deposit of effluent via its final discharge point that meets the condition set out in paragraph 6(1)(a) or (b) (referred to in these Regulations as an “original wastewater system”) — plans to consolidate those original wastewater systems into one or more wastewater systems (referred to in these Regulations as a “planned consolidated wastewater system”), the original wastewater systems that constitute each of those planned consolidated wastewater systems are, on the receipt by an authorization officer of a consolidation plan referred to in subsection (3), deemed to be a single wastewater system (referred to in these Regulations as a “fictional consolidated wastewater system”).

Final discharge point

(2) The final discharge point for each fictional consolidated wastewater system is deemed to be the final discharge point of the original wastewater system — among all of the original wastewater systems that constitute that fictional consolidated wastewater system — that is allocated the greatest number of points under the table to Schedule 2.

Consolidation plan

(3) The consolidation plan must contain the following information:

  • (a) a description of the modifications to be made to each of the original wastewater systems so that the effluent deposited via the final discharge point for the planned consolidated wastewater system is not acutely lethal and meets the conditions for authorization set out in paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b), along with a schedule for implementation of the plan;

  • (b) a statement identifying the final discharge point of each of the original wastewater systems that are, under the plan, to be eliminated, including the information referred to in paragraph 18(1)(e) for each of those final discharge points; and

  • (c) the information referred to in paragraphs 18(1)(f) and (g) in respect of the final discharge point and the overflow points for the planned consolidated wastewater system.

PART 1

AUTHORIZATION TO DEPOSIT

EFFLUENT CONTAINING DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES

Prescribed deleterious substances

5. For the purpose of the definition “deleterious substance” in subsection 34(1) of the Act, the following substances or classes of substances are prescribed as deleterious substances:

  • (a) carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demanding matter;

  • (b) suspended solids;

  • (c) total residual chlorine; and

  • (d) un-ionized ammonia.

Authorization to deposit

6. (1) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of a wastewater system may — during a given calendar year, quarter or month, determined in accordance with subsection (2) — deposit or permit the deposit of effluent that contains any of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 5 via the system’s final discharge point in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act if the effluent is not acutely lethal as determined in accordance with section 15 and if — during the previous calendar year, previous quarter or previous month, determined in accordance with subsection (2) — the effluent met the following conditions:

  • (a) the average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand due to the quantity of CBOD matter in the effluent did not exceed 25 mg/L;

  • (b) the average concentration of suspended solids in the effluent did not exceed 25 mg/L;

  • (c) the average concentration of total residual chlorine in the effluent did not exceed 0.02 mg/L, if chlorine, or one of its compounds, was used in the treatment of wastewater; and

  • (d) the maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent was less than 1.25 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N), at 15°C ± 1°C.

Averaging period

(2) The averages referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) and the maximum referred to in paragraph (1)(d) must be determined on the following basis:

  • (a) each calendar year, if the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point during the previous calendar year was

    • (i) less than or equal to 17 500 m3, for an intermittent wastewater system, or

    • (ii) less than or equal to 2 500 m3, for a continuous wastewater system with a hydraulic retention time of five or more days;

  • (b) each quarter, if the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point during the previous calendar year was

    • (i) greater than 2 500 m3 and less than or equal to 17 500 m3, for a continuous wastewater system with a hydraulic retention time of five or more days, and

    • (ii) less than or equal to 17 500 m3, for any other continuous wastewater system; and

  • (c) each month, if the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point during the previous calendar year was greater than 17 500 m3.

Determination of averages and maximum

(3) The averages referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) and the maximum referred to in paragraph (1)(d) must be determined

  • (a) for an intermittent wastewater system, based on samples of effluent referred to in subsections 10(1) and, if applicable, 10(5), in accordance with subsection 10(4); and

  • (b) for a continuous wastewater system, based on samples of effluent referred to in, as the case may be subsection 10(2) or (3) and, if applicable, subsection 10(5), in accordance with subsection 10(4).

Determinations for additional samples

(4) A determination made under subsection 10(4) or (5), as the case may be, for any sample beyond the number of samples required under subsection 10(1), (2) or (3) must, if that determination were made by an accredited laboratory referred to in section 16, be included when determining an average or the maximum under subsection (3).

Determination of SS average during July, August, September or October

(5) For an intermittent wastewater system or a continuous wastewater system with a hydraulic retention time of five or more days, the determination of the average referred to in paragraph (1)(b) is not to take into account the result of any determination of the concentration of suspended solids in a sample of effluent referred to in paragraph 10(4)(b) that was taken during the month of July, August, September or October, if that result is greater than 25 mg/L.

When SS average is deemed to be 0 mg/L

(6) If subsection (5) applies to every sample referred to in paragraph (3)(a) that is used to determine the average referred to in paragraph (1)(b), that average is deemed to be 0 mg/L.

Conditions

(7) The authorization granted to an owner or operator under subsection (1) is conditional on the owner or operator

  • (a) determining the average daily volume of effluent deposited annually via the final discharge point in accordance with section 7;

  • (b) for an intermittent wastewater system, either installing, maintaining and calibrating the monitoring equipment referred to in subparagraph 7(2)(a)(i) in accordance with section 9 or establishing a method of estimation referred to in subparagraph 7(2)(a)(ii) in accordance with subsection 7(4) and maintaining it;

  • (c) for a continuous wastewater system, installing, maintaining and calibrating the monitoring equipment referred to in subparagraph 7(2)(b)(i) or (ii), as the case may be, in accordance with section 9;

  • (d) monitoring effluent in accordance with sections 10 and 11 and sending a monitoring report in accordance with section 19;

  • (e) keeping the record required under section 17;

  • (f) sending an identification report in accordance with section 18; and

  • (g) sending the overflow report, if applicable, required under section 20 in accordance with subsections 19(4) and (5).

VOLUME OF EFFLUENT

Average daily volume deposited annually

7. (1) The owner or operator of a wastewater system must, for each calendar year, calculate the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the system’s final discharge point by

  • (a) determining, in accordance with subsection (2), for each day during that calendar year when effluent was deposited, the volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point, expressed in m3;

  • (b) calculating the sum of the daily volumes of effluent referred to in paragraph (a); and

  • (c) dividing that sum by the number of days in that calendar year.

Daily volumes

(2) The volume of effluent during each day referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must be determined

  • (a) for an intermittent wastewater system,

    • (i) by using monitoring equipment referred to in section 9 that provides

      • (A) a continuous measure of the volume of influent, or effluent deposited via the final discharge point, during that day, or

      • (B) a measure of the rate of flow of the influent or that effluent upon which that daily volume may be estimated, or

    • (ii) by using a method of estimation in accordance with subsection (4);

  • (b) for a continuous wastewater system, by using monitoring equipment referred to in section 9 that provides

    • (i) a continuous measure of the volume of influent, or effluent deposited via the final discharge point, during that day, if the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point during the previous calendar year was more than 2 500 m3, and

    • (ii) a continuous measure of that volume or a measure of the rate of flow of that influent or effluent upon which that daily volume of effluent may be estimated, in any other case.

Estimate of daily volume based on measured rate of flow

(3) The estimation of the volume of effluent deposited during a day referred to in paragraph (1)(a) based on a measured rate of flow, referred to in clause (2)(a)(i)(B) or subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), is to be done as follows:

  • (a) measure the rate of flow of influent, or effluent deposited via the final discharge point, in any chosen unit of volume for any chosen unit of time; and

  • (b) calculate that volume based on that rate of flow for the duration of the deposits of effluent made on that day and, if applicable, convert it to m3.

Method of estimation — intermittent wastewater systems

(4) The owner or operator of an intermittent wastewater system who has established a method of estimation of the volume of effluent must ensure that it is based on generally accepted engineering practices and use it to estimate the daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point with a margin of error of ±15%.

Default measurement

8. (1) If the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point of a wastewater system for a previous calendar year cannot be determined under paragraph 7(2)(a) or (b), as the case may be, that average daily volume must be determined on the basis of the system’s average design rate of flow of influent.

One-time use of default measurement

(2) If subsection (1) has been applied in respect of a wastewater system for a calendar year, it is not to be applied in respect of the wastewater system for any subsequent calendar year.

MONITORING

Monitoring Equipment

Requirements

9. (1) The owner or operator of a continuous wastewater system must — by January 1, 2013 — have installed monitoring equipment that provides

  • (a) a continuous measure of the volume of influent or effluent, if, during the previous calendar year, the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the system’s final discharge point determined in accordance with section 7 or 8, as the case may be, was more than 2 500 m3; and

  • (b) either a continuous measure of the volume of the influent or effluent or a measure of the rate of flow of the influent or effluent, if, during the previous calendar year, the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the system’s final discharge point determined in accordance with section 7 or 8, as the case may be, was 2 500 m3 or less.

Maintenance and calibration

(2) The owner or operator of a wastewater system who has installed monitoring equipment must maintain and calibrate that equipment so that it may be used to determine the volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point in accordance with, as the case may be, subparagraph 7(2)(a)(i) or paragraph 7(2)(b).

Frequency of calibration

(3) The owner or operator must calibrate the monitoring equipment at least once in every calendar year and at least five months after a previous calibration.

Accuracy

(4) The monitoring equipment must determine the volume or rate of flow with a margin of error of ±15%.

Composition of the Effluent

Taking of samples — intermittent wastewater system

10. (1) The owner or operator of an intermittent wastewater system must, during each period referred to in paragraph 3(a), take at the system’s final discharge point a grab or composite sample of effluent at the following minimum frequency:

  • (a) if the period is more than 30 days, every two weeks but at least seven days after any other sample; and

  • (b) in any other case, once.

Taking of samples — continuous wastewater system

(2) The owner or operator of a continuous wastewater system that — during the previous calendar year in respect of the calendar year, quarter or month in question — deposited via the system’s final discharge point an average daily volume of effluent set out in column 1 of the table to this subsection must, for that calendar year, quarter or month, take at the final discharge point a sample of effluent of the type set out in column 2 at the minimum frequency set out in column 3.

TABLE

Item

Column 1

Average Daily Volume Deposited Annually (m3)

Column 2

Type of Sample to be Taken

Column 3


Minimum Sampling Frequency

1.

≤ 2 500

Grab or composite

Monthly but at least 10 days after any other sample

2.

> 2 500 and ≤ 17 500

Composite

Every two weeks but at least seven days after any other sample

3.

> 17 500 and ≤ 50 000

Composite

Weekly but at least five days after any other sample

4.

> 50 000

Composite

Three days per week but at least one day after any other sample

Sampling and frequency for certain continuous systems

(3) Despite subsection (2), the owner or operator of a continuous wastewater system with a hydraulic retention time of five or more days must

  • (a) take a grab or composite sample; and

  • (b) reduce the minimum sampling frequency to quarterly, but at least 60 days after any other sample was taken, if the system deposited via its final discharge point an average daily volume of less than or equal to 2500 m3 of effluent during the previous calendar year referred to in subsection (2).

Determination of certain deleterious substances

(4) The owner or operator must, for each sample taken under subsection (1), (2) or (3), determine, or cause the determination of

  • (a) the carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand due to the quantity of CBOD matter in the effluent, in accordance with section 12; and

  • (b) the concentration of suspended solids in the effluent, in accordance with section 13.

Before July 1, 2014 — additional determination

(5) Until July 1, 2014, the owner or operator must, for each sample taken under subsection (1), (2) or (3), determine, or cause the determination of, the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent, in accordance with the formula and a test method referred to in section 14.

Acute Lethality Testing

Taking samples

11. (1) The owner or operator of a wastewater system that — during the previous calendar year in respect of the calendar year, quarter or month in question — deposited via the system’s final discharge point an average daily volume of effluent set out in column 1 of the table to this subsection must, for that calendar year, quarter or month, take at the final discharge point a grab sample of effluent at the minimum frequency set out in column 2.

TABLE

Item

Column 1

Average Daily Volume Deposited Annually(m3)

Column 2


Minimum Sampling Frequency

1.

> 2 500 and ≤ 50 000

Quarterly but at least 60 days after any other sample

2.

> 50 000

Monthly but at least 21 days after any other sample

Acute lethality

(2) The owner or operator must, for each sample taken under subsection (1), determine, or cause the determination of, whether or not it is acutely lethal in accordance with section 15.

Additional test

(3) If a sample is determined to be acutely lethal in accordance with section 15, the owner or operator must take a grab sample twice a month, but at least seven days after any previous sample, and determine, or cause the determination of, whether or not it is acutely lethal in accordance with section 15.

Consecutive samples — not acutely lethal

(4) If three consecutive samples are, under subsection (3), determined not to be acutely lethal, subsections (1) and (2) apply to subsequent samples.

Subsequent samples

(5) For greater certainty, subsection (3) applies to any subsequent sample referred to in subsection (4) that is determined to be acutely lethal when tested under subsection (2).

Change in sampling frequency

(6) The minimum sampling frequency set out in column 2 of the table to subsection (1) is reduced

  • (a) for item 1, to yearly, but at least six months after any other sample, if samples were taken under subsection (1) for each of four consecutive quarters and those samples were tested under subsection (2) and determined not to be acutely lethal; and

  • (b) for item 2, to quarterly, but at least 60 days after any other sample, if samples were taken under subsection (1) for each of 12 consecutive months and those samples were tested under subsection (2) and determined not to be acutely lethal.

Test Methods

CBOD matter

12. The demand due to the quantity of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demanding matter in the effluent must be determined in accordance with a five-day biochemical oxygen demand test with nitrification inhibition.

Suspended solids

13. The concentration of suspended solids in the effluent must be determined in accordance with a total suspended solids test.

Un-ionized ammonia

14. (1) The concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent must be determined in accordance with the following formula:

Formula information can be found in the surrounding text

where

total ammonia is the concentration of total ammonia — namely, un-ionized ammonia (NH3) plus ionized ammonia (NH4+) — determined in accordance with subsection (2), expressed in mg/L as nitrogen (N); and

pH is the pH of the effluent adjusted to 15°C ± 1°C and determined in accordance with subsection (3).

Concentration of total ammonia

(2) The concentration of total ammonia in the effluent must be determined by using an aliquot of the same sample of effluent from which the pH of the effluent was determined and testing it in accordance with a total ammonia test.

pH

(3) The pH of the effluent must be determined by using an aliquot of the same sample of effluent from which the concentration of total ammonia of the effluent was determined and testing it in accordance with a pH test.

Acute lethality

15. The acute lethality of the effluent must be de termined in accordance with

  • (a) Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 using the procedure set out in section 5 or 6 of that Method; or

  • (b) paragraph (a) using the Procedure for pH Stabilization EPS 1/RM/50.

Accredited Laboratory

Accredited laboratory

16. A determination referred to in subsection 10(4) or (5) or 11(2) or (3), paragraph 34(1)(a) or (b) or (4)(a) and any determination necessary to make that determination — other than the determination of pH of water necessary to make the determination referred to in subsection 34(3) — must be made

  • (a) by a laboratory

    • (i) that is accredited under the International Organization for Standardization standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 entitled General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, as amended from time to time, by an accrediting body that is a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement, and

    • (ii) whose accreditation includes the analytical method used to make the determination; or

  • (b) by a laboratory

    • (i) that is accredited under the Environment Quality Act, R.S.Q., c. Q-2, as amended from time to time, by an accreditation body that is recognized in accordance with that Act, and

    • (ii) whose accreditation includes the analytical method used to make the determination.

RECORD KEEPING

Information to be recorded

17. The owner or operator of a wastewater system must keep the report on each determination made by an accredited laboratory referred to in section 16 and a record that contains the following information:

  • (a) for the final discharge point,

    • (i) the date of each day on which effluent was not deposited via the final discharge point,

    • (ii) the date of each day on which effluent was deposited via the final discharge point, and

    • (iii) for each of the days referred to in subparagraph (ii)

      • (A) for a wastewater system whose daily volume of effluent referred to in paragraph 7(1)(a) was determined using monitoring equipment referred to in section 9

        • (I) the daily volume of the effluent, expressed in m3, if that volume is yielded by a continuous measure, and

        • (II) the estimated daily volume, expressed in m3, as determined in accordance with subsection 7(3) and the results of the measurement and the calculation referred to in paragraphs 7(3)(a) and (b), in any other case, and

      • (B) for an intermittent wastewater system whose daily volume of effluent referred to in paragraph 7(1)(a) was determined using a method of estimation in accordance with subsection 7(4), the estimated daily volume, expressed in m3, and

    • (iv) the average daily volume of effluent deposited annually, expressed in m3, determined in accordance with subsection 8(1), if applicable;

  • (b) for each combined sewer overflow point via which effluent is deposited because of precipitation, including the melting of snow or ice, that resulted in excess wastewater in the wastewater system,

    • (i) the date of each day on which effluent was deposited via the overflow point,

    • (ii) for each of those days, the duration or estimated duration, expressed in hours, of the deposit, along with an indication of whether it is the duration or an estimated duration and

      • (A) the daily volume of the effluent deposited, expressed in m3, if that volume is yielded by a continuous measure, and

      • (B) the estimated daily volume of the effluent deposited, expressed in m3, in any other case,

    • (iii) the volume or estimated volume, expressed in m3, of effluent for each month during which effluent was deposited via the overflow point, and

    • (iv) the number of days in each of those months during which effluent was deposited via the overflow point;

  • (c) for any monitoring equipment referred to in section 9,

    • (i) a description, including its type,

    • (ii) if applicable, the manufacturer’s specifications, the year of manufacture and the model number,

    • (iii) each date on which the equipment was calibrated and its degree of accuracy after each calibration, and

    • (iv) the date on which the equipment was installed and, if applicable, the date on which it ceased to be used for monitoring and on which it was replaced;

  • (d) for each sample referred to in subsection 10(1), (2) or (3), as the case may be, and, if applicable, subsection 6(4),

    • (i) the results of the determinations referred to in subsection 10(4), and

    • (ii) a statement as to whether the sample is a grab sample or a composite sample and the date on which the sample was taken;

  • (e) for each sample referred to in subsections 10(5) and, if applicable 6(4),

    • (i) the results of the determination referred to in subsection 10(5),

    • (ii) the results of the determination of the concentration of total ammonia in the effluent and of the pH of the effluent referred to in subsections 14(2) and (3), respectively, that were used to make the determination referred to in subsection 10(5), and

    • (iii) a statement as to whether the sample is a grab sample or a composite sample and the date on which the sample was taken;

  • (f) for each sample referred to in section 11 whose acute lethality was determined in accordance with section 15, the information referred to in section 8 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and, if the acute lethality of the effluent was determined in accordance with that method used with the Procedure for pH Stabilization EPS 1/RM/50, section 3 of that procedure;

  • (g) if the owner or operator holds of a temporary authorization issued under subsection 36(1),

    • (i) for each sample referred to in paragraph (d),

      • (A) the result of the determination referred to in paragraph 38(b),

      • (B) the results of the determination of the concentration of total ammonia in the effluent and of the pH of the effluent referred to in subsections 14(2) and (3), respectively, that were used to make the determination referred to in clause (A),

      • (C) a statement as to whether the sample is a grab sample or a composite sample and the date on which the sample was taken, and

    • (ii) the result of the determination referred to in paragraph 38(c) for each August and a description of how that determination was made.

REPORTING

Identification Report

Required information

18. (1) The owner or operator of a wastewater system must send to the authorization officer an identification report that contains the following information:

  • (a) the owner’s and the operator’s name, civic and postal addresses, telephone number and, if any, email address and fax number;

  • (b) the name, title, civic and postal addresses, telephone number and, if any, email address and fax number, of a contact person;

  • (c) if any, the wastewater system’s name and civic address;

  • (d) with respect to the wastewater system:

    • (i) a statement indicating whether it is an intermittent or continuous wastewater system,

    • (ii) for a continuous wastewater system, a statement indicating whether its hydraulic retention time is five days or more,

    • (iii) a statement indicating whether the system is owned or operated, or both, by one or several of the following:

      • (A) Her Majesty in right of Canada or another federal body,

      • (B) Her Majesty in right of a province or another provincial body,

      • (C) a municipality or another local authority,

      • (D) an Aboriginal organization, including an Indian, an Inuit or a Métis government or the “council of the band”, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, or

      • (E) an entity other than one referred to in clauses (A) to (D), and

    • (iv) the type of wastewater treatment, if any, including whether chlorine, or one of its compounds, is used, and a description of the type;

  • (e) the latitude and longitude of the final discharge point;

  • (f) for a point of entry in relation to the final discharge point,

    • (i) its latitude and longitude,

    • (ii) a description of the water frequented by fish into which effluent is deposited, including

      • (A) a description of its use, if any, and

      • (B) its name, if any, and the name, if any, of the body of water that includes that water, and

    • (iii) a statement as to whether the effluent is deposited in water frequented by fish via the final discharge point or from a place where it was deposited via the final discharge point;

  • (g) the number of overflow points for each of the combined sewers and sanitary sewers of the wastewater system and the latitude and longitude of each of those overflow points;

  • (h) for a point of entry in relation to each overflow point, a description of the water frequented by fish into which effluent is deposited, including

    • (i) a description of its use, if any, and

    • (ii) its name, if any, and the name, if any, of the body of water that includes that water; and

  • (i) for the calendar year before the calendar year in which the identification report is sent, the average daily volume, expressed in m3, of effluent deposited via the wastewater system’s final discharge point — calculated in accordance with subsection 7(1) or by using another method based on measurements or, if not so calculated, determined on the basis of the system’s average design rate of flow of influent — and a statement of the method of calculation or determination used and, if the method was another method of calculation based on measurements, a brief description of that method.

Required information — fictional consolidated wastewater system

(2) Despite subsection (1), an owner or operator of a fictional consolidated wastewater system must send an identification report that contains

  • (a) for each of the original wastewater systems that constitute the fictional consolidated wastewater system, the information referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c), (e), (g) and (h); and

  • (b) for the fictional consolidated wastewater system, the information referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (g) and (i).

Latitude and longitude

(3) The latitude and longitude of a point referred to in paragraph (1)(e), subparagraph (1)(f)(i) and paragraph (1)(g) are to be expressed in decimal degrees to four decimal places rounded to the nearest ten-thousandth of a degree and, if the latitude or longitude is equidistant between two ten-thousandths of a degree, to the higher of them.

Electronic report

(4) The identification report must be sent electronically in the form and format specified by the Minister of the Environment and must bear the electronic signature of the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative. The identification report must be sent

  • (a) by May 15, 2013, if the wastewater system is in operation on January 1, 2013; and

  • (b) within 45 days after the wastewater system comes into operation, in any other case.

Paper report

(5) If the Minister of the Environment has not specified an electronic form and format or if it is not feasible to send the report electronically in accordance with subsection (4) because of circumstances beyond the owner’s or operator’s control, the report must be sent on paper, signed by the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative, and in the form and format specified by the Minister of the Environment. However, if no form and format have been specified, it may be in any form and format.

Change of information

(6) If the information provided in the identification report changes, the owner or operator must send a notice that provides the updated information to the authorization officer no later than 45 days after the change.

Decommissioning

(7) An owner or operator of a wastewater system must, at least 45 days before the planned decommissioning of the wastewater system, send a notice to the authorization officer setting out the planned date of the decommissioning and information specifying the place, including the civic address, if any, of that place, where the identification report is to be kept.

Monitoring Report

Information

19. (1) The owner or operator of a wastewater system must send, within 45 days after the end of the period referred to in subsection (2), to the authorization officer a monitoring report that contains the following information:

  • (a) if applicable, a statement that indicates that effluent was not deposited during that period; and

  • (b) in any other case,

    • (i) if applicable, a statement that indicates any month in that period during which effluent was not deposited,

    • (ii) the number of days during which effluent was deposited,

    • (iii) the volume of effluent that was deposited, expressed in m3,

    • (iv) the average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand due to the quantity of CBOD matter in the effluent,

    • (v) the average concentration of suspended solids in the effluent;

    • (vi) the maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent, if the period ends on or before June 30, 2014,

    • (vii) if the owner or operator holds a temporary authorization issued under subsection 36(1),

      • (A) the result of each determination referred to in clause 17(g)(i)(A) and the date on which the sample used to make that determination was taken, and

      • (B) if the period includes an August, the result of the determination referred to in subparagraph 17(g)(ii) for that August, and

    • (viii) for each sample for which a determination of acute lethality was made in accordance with section 15, a statement that indicates

      • (A) the date on which the sample was taken,

      • (B) each procedure referred to in section 15 that was used to determine the sample’s acute lethality, and

      • (C) whether the sample was acutely lethal or not.

Period

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the period is

  • (a) a calendar year, if the wastewater system deposited an average daily volume of effluent via the final discharge point during the previous calendar year in respect of that calendar year of

    • (i) less than or equal to 17 500 m3, for an intermittent wastewater system, or

    • (ii) less than or equal to 2 500 m3, for a continuous wastewater system with a hydraulic retention time of five or more days; and

  • (b) a quarter, in any other case.

Period for which information reported

(3) The information referred to in subsection (1) is to be reported

  • (a) for the period referred to in subsection (2), if that period is a calendar year or a quarter; and

  • (b) for each month during that period, if that period is a quarter and the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point during the previous calendar year in respect of that quarter was greater than 17 500 m3.

Electronic report

(4) The report must be sent electronically in the form and format specified by the Minister of the Environment and must bear the electronic signature of the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative.

Paper report

(5) If the Minister of the Environment has not specified an electronic form and format or if it is not feasible to send the report electronically in accordance with subsection (4) because of circumstances beyond the owner’s or operator’s control, the report must be sent on paper, signed by the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative, and in the form and format specified by the Minister of the Environment. However, if no form and format have been specified, it may be in any form and format.

Combined Sewer Overflow Report

Information

20. The owner or operator of a wastewater system that includes at least one combined sewer overflow point must, in accordance with subsections 19(4) and (5), send to the authorization officer a combined sewer overflow report in respect of each calendar year by February 15 of the following calendar year and the report must contain the following information:

  • (a) for each month of the calendar year during which effluent was deposited via a combined sewer overflow point, the information referred to in subparagraphs 17(b)(iii) and (iv); and

  • (b) for each month of the calendar year during which effluent was not deposited via a combined sewer overflow point, a statement indicating that no effluent was deposited via an overflow point during the month.

RECORD MAKING AND RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS

When records made

21. Records must be made without delay after the information to be recorded becomes available.

Retention of records

22. (1) An owner or operator of a wastewater system must keep a report referred to in section 17, as well as a record and a copy of a report required to be sent under these Regulations — along with any supporting documents — for at least five years after the day on which the record or report, as the case may be, was made.

Place of retention

(2) The report referred to in section 17, the record and the copy must be kept at the wastewater system or at any other place in Canada where it can be inspected. If that report, record or copy is kept at one of those other places, the owner or operator must provide the authorization officer with information specifying that other place, including its civic address, if any.

Information on monitoring equipment and identification report

(3) Despite subsection (1), the information referred to in paragraph 17(c) must be kept for at least five years after the day on which the monitoring equipment ceased to be used, and the identification report, as it may be updated from time to time, referred to in section 18 must be kept for at least five years after the wastewater system is decommissioned.

PART 2

TRANSITIONAL AND TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATIONS TO DEPOSIT

PURPOSE

Paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act

23. (1) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, an owner or operator of a wastewater system may deposit or permit the deposit of effluent that contains any of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 5 via the final discharge point in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act, if the deposit is made in accordance with an authorization issued under this Part.

Definition of “deposit”

(2) For the purposes of sections 24 to 49, “deposit”, in relation to effluent, includes to permit the deposit of the effluent.

TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION

Requirements and Duration

Transitional authorization

24. (1) The owner or operator of a wastewater system may, on or before June 30, 2014, apply to an authorization officer for a transitional authorization to deposit via the final discharge point effluent that contains a deleterious substance prescribed in section 5, or any combination of those substances, if the average referred to in paragraph 6(1)(a) or (b), as determined in accordance with subsection 6(3), exceeded 25 mg/L during the following periods:

  • (a) any period of 12 consecutive months during the 15 months immediately before the day on which the application is made, if the wastewater system deposited, during the previous calendar year in respect of that period of 12 consecutive months, an average daily volume of effluent via its final discharge point of

    • (i) less than or equal to 17 500 m3, for an intermittent wastewater system, or

    • (ii) less than or equal to 2 500 m3, for a continuous wastewater system with a hydraulic retention time of five or more days;

  • (b) any three consecutive months in any of those periods of 12 consecutive months, if the wastewater system deposited, during the previous calendar year in respect of that period of 12 consecutive months, an average daily volume of effluent via its final discharge point of

    • (i) greater than 2 500 m3 and less than or equal to 17 500 m3, for a continuous wastewater system with a hydraulic retention time of five or more days, and

    • (ii) less than or equal to 17 500 m3, for any other continuous wastewater system; and

  • (c) any three months in any of those periods of 12 consecutive months, if the wastewater system deposited, during the previous calendar year in respect of that period of 12 consecutive months, an average daily volume of effluent via its final discharge point of greater than 17 500 m3.

Duration of authorization — point system in Schedules 2 and 3

(2) The duration, set out in subsection 26(2), of a transitional authorization is based on the system for the allocation of points related to the final discharge point set out in the table to Schedule 2 and, if applicable, related to the system’s combined sewer overflow points set out in Schedule 3.

Application

Required information

25. (1) An application for a transitional authorization in respect of a wastewater system must contain the following information:

  • (a) the owner’s and the operator’s name, civic and postal addresses, telephone number and, if any, email address and fax number;

  • (b) the name, title, civic and postal addresses, telephone number and, if any, email address and fax number of a contact person;

  • (c) if any, the wastewater system’s name and civic address;

  • (d) the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) upon which the application is based;

  • (e) information that establishes that at the time of the application

    • (i) the condition for the authorization set out in paragraph 6(1)(a) or (b) is not met,

    • (ii) the condition was not met because of the design characteristics of the wastewater system, and

    • (iii) it was not technically or economically feasible before the time of the application to have modified the wastewater system, including its processes, in order to meet that condition;

  • (f) a plan for the modifications to be made to the wastewater system, including a description of the modifications to be made to its processes, so that the effluent deposited via its final discharge point is not acutely lethal and meets the conditions for authorization set out in paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b), along with a schedule for implementation of the plan;

  • (g) the latitude and longitude of the final discharge point expressed in decimal degrees in accordance with subsection 18(3);

  • (h) the number of points allocated under the table to Schedule 2;

  • (i) a statement as to which of the waters set out in paragraphs 5(a) to (g), column 2, of the table to Schedule 2 describes the water where the effluent is deposited, or may enter from the place where the effluent is deposited, via the final discharge point and, among the points set out in column 3 for those waters, the highest number of points;

  • (j) the average daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point, as determined in accordance with section 7, for the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) upon which the application is based, and the number of points set out in item 1, column 3, of the table to Schedule 2 that applies to that volume based on the ranges of volume set out in column 2;

  • (k) the averages referred to in paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b), as determined in accordance with subsection 6(3), over

    • (i) the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in paragraph 24(1)(a) upon which the application is based, if paragraph 24(1)(a) applies, and

    • (ii) each month of the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in paragraph 24(1)(b) or (c), as the case may be, upon which the application is based, if paragraph 24(1)(b) or (c) applies;

  • (l) the number of points determined in accordance with the formula set out in item 2, column 2, of the table to Schedule 2 when using in that formula, as the case may be, the averages

    • (i) determined under paragraph (k) over the period referred to in subparagraph (k)(i), or

    • (ii) obtained by taking the sum of the averages determined under paragraph (k) for each month referred to in subparagraph (k)(ii) and dividing that number by 12;

  • (m) each of the averages that were summed under subparagraph (l)(ii);

  • (n) where chlorine, or one of its compounds, was used in the treatment of wastewater in the wastewater system, the number of points set out in item 3, column 3, of the table to Schedule 2 if

    • (i) the average concentration of total residual chlorine in the effluent deposited via the final discharge point — for the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) upon which the application is based — exceeded 0.02 mg/L, or

    • (ii) the wastewater system’s effluent is not dechlorinated before it is deposited via the final discharge point;

  • (o) the maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent, expressed in mg/L as nitrogen (N), at 15°C ± 1°C, as determined in accordance with subsection 6(3), over

    • (i) the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in paragraph 24(1)(a) upon which the application is based, if paragraph 24(1)(a) applies, and

    • (ii) each month of the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in paragraph 24(1)(b) or (c), as the case may be, upon which the application is based, if paragraph 24(1)(b) or (c) applies;

  • (p) if, as the case may be, the maximum concentration referred to in subparagraph (o)(i) or any of the maximum concentrations referred to in subparagraph (o)(ii) was greater than or equal to 1.25 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N) at 15°C ± 1°C, the number of points set out in item 4, column 3, of the table to Schedule 2;

  • (q) if the duration of the transitional authorization sought in the application relies on an allocation of points under Schedule 3, in addition to points allocated under the table to Schedule 2, for any combined sewer overflow point that is, under Schedule 3, allocated a number of points greater than or equal to the number of points allocated under the table to Schedule 2 to the final discharge point

    • (i) the percentage referred to in item 1, column 1, of Schedule 3 that is described in whichever of paragraphs 1(a) to (d), column 2, of that Schedule that applies,

    • (ii) the number of deposits referred to in item 2, column 1, of Schedule 3 that are described in whichever of paragraphs 2(a) to (d), column 2, of that Schedule that applies, for the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) upon which the application is based,

    • (iii) a statement as to which of the waters set out in paragraphs 3(a) to (c), column 2, of Schedule 3 describes the water where the effluent is deposited, or may enter from the place where the effluent is deposited, via that combined sewer overflow point, and

    • (iv) the number of points set out in column 3 of Schedule 3 for the applicable paragraph set out in column 2 of that Schedule as determined for the purposes of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and the number of those points that applies for each statement referred to in subparagraph (iii);

  • (r) the information set out in subparagraph 18(1)(g)(i) for the combined sewer overflow point referred to in paragraph (q);

  • (s) for an application referred to in paragraph (q), a plan that describes the modifications to be made to the wastewater system, and any other measure to be taken, to reduce, after the expiry of the period for which the transitional authorization is sought, the quantity of deleterious substances prescribed in section 5 in the effluent deposited via overflow points of a combined sewer and a schedule for implementation of the plan; and

  • (t) a statement signed and dated by the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative, that certifies that information provided in the application is true, accurate and complete

    • (i) in the case of information that was prepared by the owner or operator, to the best of the owner’s or operator’s information and belief, and

    • (ii) in the case of information that was prepared by other persons with sufficient knowledge to evaluate that information, to the best of the owner’s or operator’s information and belief, based on representations made to them by those persons.

Required information — fictional consolidated wastewater system

(2) Despite subsection (1), an application for a transitional authorization made by an owner or operator of a fictional consolidated wastewater system must, instead of the plan referred to in paragraph (1)(f), contain a copy of the consolidation plan referred to in subsection 4(1).

Conditions of Issuance

Required information

26. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the authorization officer must issue the transitional authorization if

  • (a) the application contains the information required by subsection 25(1) or (2), as the case may be;

  • (b) the information referred to in paragraph 25(1)(e) can reasonably be regarded as establishing that at the time of the application

    • (i) the condition for the authorization set out in paragraph 6(1)(a) or (b) was not met,

    • (ii) that condition was not met because of the design of the wastewater system, and

    • (iii) it was not technically or economically feasible before the time of the application to have modified the wastewater system, including its processes, in order to meet that condition; and

  • (c) the schedule to implement the plan referred to in paragraph 25(1)(f) or subsection 4(1), as the case may be, and, if applicable, paragraph 25(1)(s) can reasonably be regarded as feasible for the purpose of meeting the requirements, as the case may be, referred to in paragraph 25(1)(f) or paragraph 4(3)(a) and, if applicable, achieve the reduction referred to in paragraph 25(1)(s).

Duration of transitional authorization

(2) The transitional authorization must be issued for the following period:

  • (a) from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020, if the final discharge point is, under the table to Schedule 2, allocated 70 or more points and, if the wastewater system has combined sewer overflow points for which points are allocated under Schedule 3, each combined sewer overflow point of the wastewater system is allocated less points than the number of points allocated under the table to Schedule 2 to the final discharge point;

  • (b) from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2030, if the final discharge point is, under the table to Schedule 2, allocated 50 or more points but less than 70 points and, if the wastewater system has combined sewer overflow points for which points are allocated under Schedule 3, each combined sewer overflow point of the wastewater system is allocated less points than the number of points allocated under the table to Schedule 2 to the final discharge point; and

  • (c) from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2040,

    • (i) if the final discharge point is, under the table to Schedule 2, allocated less than 50 points, or

    • (ii) if the final discharge point is, under the table to Schedule 2, allocated 50 or more points and the wastewater system has combined sewer overflow points for which points are allocated under Schedule 3, there is at least one combined sewer overflow point that is, under Schedule 3, allocated a number of points that is greater than or equal to the number of points allocated under the table to Schedule 2 to the final discharge point.

Refusal

(3) The authorization officer must refuse to issue the transitional authorization if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information contained in, or provided in support of, the application is false or misleading in a material respect.

Change of plan

27. (1) A holder of a transitional authorization who changes a plan referred in paragraph 25(1)(f), subsection 4(1) or paragraph 25(1)(s) must, without delay, provide the authorization officer with the changed plan, along with a schedule to implement it.

Approval of changed plan

(2) The authorization officer must approve the changed plan and the schedule to implement it, if the requirements referred to in paragraph 26(1)(c) are satisfied. With that approval, the transitional authorization, based on that changed plan and that schedule, continues to be in force.

Original plan if no approval

(3) If that changed plan and that schedule are not approved, the transitional authorization continues to be in force only if the holder respects the original plan and the original schedule for its implementation.

Conditions on Transitional Authorizations

Authorized deposits — transitional authorization

28. (1) A holder of a transitional authorization in respect of a wastewater system is authorized — during a given calendar year, quarter or month, determined in accordance with subsection 6(2), in the period of authorization — to deposit effluent that contains any of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 5 via the final discharge point if — during the previous calendar year, previous quarter or previous month — the effluent met the following conditions:

  • (a) the average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand due to the quantity of CBOD matter in the effluent referred to in paragraph 6(1)(a), determined in accordance with subsections 6(2) and (3), did not exceed

    • (i) 1.25 times the average determined for the carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand due to the quantity of CBOD matter referred to in subparagraph 25(1)(k)(i) or the greatest of those averages referred to in subparagraph 25(1)(k)(ii), as the case may be, if the product resulting from that multiplication is greater than 25 mg/L, and

    • (ii) 25 mg/L, in any other case;

  • (b) the average concentration of suspended solids in the effluent referred to in paragraph 6(1)(b), determined in accordance with subsections 6(2) and (3), did not exceed

    • (i) 1.25 times the average concentration of suspended solids referred to in subparagraph 25(1)(k)(i) or the greatest of those averages referred to in subparagraph 25(1)(k)(ii), as the case may be, if the product resulting from that multiplication is greater than 25 mg/L, and

    • (ii) 25 mg/L, in any other case;

  • (c) the average concentration of total residual chlorine in the effluent referred to in paragraph 6(1)(c), determined in accordance with subsections 6(2) and (3), did not exceed 0.02 mg/L, if chlorine, or one of its compounds, was used in the treatment of wastewater; and

  • (d) the maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent referred to in paragraph 6(1)(d), determined in accordance with subsections 6(2) and (3), was less than

    • (i) 1.25 times the maximum concentration referred to in subparagraph 25(1)(o)(i) or the greatest of those maximum concentrations referred to in subparagraph 25(1)(o)(ii), as the case may be, if the product resulting from that multiplication is greater than or equal to 1.25 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N), at 15°C ± 1°C, and

    • (ii) 1.25 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N), at 15°C ± 1°C, in any other case.

Authorized deposits — fictional consolidated wastewater system

(2) A holder of a transitional authorization in respect of a fictional consolidated wastewater system is, in addition, authorized, during the given calendar year, quarter or month referred to in subsection (1), to deposit effluent that contains any of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 5 via the final discharge point of each of the original wastewater systems that constitute the fictional consolidated wastewater system — other than the final discharge point for the fictional consolidated wastewater system referred to in subsection 4(2) — if the effluent deposited via the final discharge point of each of those original wastewater systems — during the previous calendar year, previous quarter or previous month — met the conditions set out in subsection (1).

Compliance Obligations

General requirements

29. (1) A holder of a transitional authorization in respect of a wastewater system must, during the period of authorization,

  • (a) comply with sections 7 to 10, 12 to 14, 16 to 22 and 48; and

  • (b) respect the plan referred to in, as the case may be, subsection 4(1) or paragraph 25(1)(f) and, if applicable, paragraph 25(1)(s) — or, if applicable, that plan as approved with changes under subsection 27(2) — and respect its schedule for implementation.

Progress reports

(2) The holder of a transitional authorization must, within 90 days before the following dates, send to the authorization officer a progress report on the steps taken to implement the plan referred to in, as the case may be, subsection 4(1) or paragraph 25(1)(f) and, if applicable, paragraph 25(1)(s) — or, if applicable, that plan as approved with changes under subsection 27(2):

  • (a) July 1, 2017, if the period of authorization ends on December 31, 2020;

  • (b) July 1, 2020 and July 1, 2025, if the period of authorization ends on December 31, 2030; and

  • (c) July 1, 2020, July 1, 2025, July 1, 2030 and July 1, 2035, if the period of authorization ends on December 31, 2040.

Scope of Transitional Authorization and Revocation

Content of transitional authorization

30. A transitional authorization must be in the form set out in Schedule 4 and contain the following information:

  • (a) the information referred to in paragraphs 25(1)(a) and (c);

  • (b) the latitude and longitude of the final discharge point;

  • (c) the date of issuance;

  • (d) the period of authorization; and

  • (e) the following averages and maximum concentration of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 5 that are authorized to be contained in effluent that is deposited via the final discharge point during a given calendar year, quarter or month referred to in subsection 28(1):

    • (i) for the average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand due to the quantity of CBOD matter, the average referred to in, as the case may be, subparagraph 28(1)(a)(i) or (ii),

    • (ii) for the average concentration of suspended solids, the average referred to in, as the case may be, subparagraph 28(1)(b)(i) or (ii),

    • (iii) for the average concentration of total residual chlorine, the average referred to in paragraph 28(1)(c), and

    • (iv) for the maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia, the maximum concentration referred to in, as the case may be, subparagraph 28(1)(d)(i) or (ii).

Correction of information

31. (1) If the owner or operator becomes aware that the information provided in an application for a transitional authorization contains errors, they must, without delay, send a notice to the authorization officer, which indicates the reason for the errors and provides corrections, and make the certification under paragraph 25(1)(t) with respect to the corrected application.

Corrected transitional authorization

(2) On receipt of a notice that provides corrections that, if provided with the application, would have affected the scope of the information referred to in section 30 contained in the transitional authorization, the authorization officer must issue a corrected transitional authorization as if the corrections together with the remaining information originally provided in the application were an application under section 25.

Revocation

32. (1) The authorization officer may revoke a transitional authorization if

  • (a) the information referred to in subsection 25(1) or (2), as the case may be, contained in the application or the information provided in a progress report referred to in subsection 29(2) is false or misleading in a material respect;

  • (b) the holder has, during the period of authorization, failed to comply with any condition set out in section 28 or any provision referred to in subsection 29(1);

  • (c) new information indicates that a deposit authorized under section 28 has had or is likely to have an effect on fish, fish habitat or the use by man of fish that is more adverse than the worst of the effects that were anticipated when that authorization was issued;

  • (d) the holder has not sent a progress report in accordance with subsection 29(2); or

  • (e) the authorization officer, based on a progress report referred to in subsection 29(2), has reasonable grounds to believe that the plan — referred to in, as the case may be, subsection 4(1) or paragraph 25(1)(f) and, if applicable, paragraph 25(1)(s) — or, if applicable, that plan as approved with changes under subsection 27(2) — cannot be fully implemented before the end of the period of authorization.

Considerations

(2) When determining whether to revoke a transitional authorization, the authorization officer must consider, as applicable, whether the holder of a transitional authorization

  • (a) has a history of non-compliance with any condition or provision referred to in paragraph (1)(b);

  • (b) has provided a reasonable justification for not sending a progress report in accordance with subsection 29(2); or

  • (c) has carried out, or signed an undertaking to carry out, specified corrective measures to ensure compliance with any condition or provision referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or to prevent or mitigate a more adverse effect referred to in paragraph (1)(c).

Representations

(3) The authorization officer is not permitted to revoke a transitional authorization unless they have provided the holder with

  • (a) written reasons for the proposed revocation; and

  • (b) an opportunity to be heard, by written representation, in respect of the proposed revocation.

Early expiry

33. Despite subsections 24(2) and 26(2), a transitional authorization expires at the end of a given calendar year, quarter or month determined in accordance with subsection 6(2), if the effluent deposited via the final discharge point of the wastewater system was not acutely lethal and met the conditions for the authorization set out in paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b) during

  • (a) that given calendar year;

  • (b) that given quarter and the three quarters immediately before that given quarter during which effluent was deposited via the final discharge point; or

  • (c) that given month and each of the 11 months immediately before that given month during which effluent was deposited via the final discharge point.

TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION TO DEPOSIT UN-IONIZED AMMONIA

Requirements and Duration

Requirements

34. (1) The owner or operator of a wastewater system whose effluent deposited via its final discharge point is acutely lethal because of the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in it may apply to an authorization officer for a temporary authorization to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia via the final discharge point if the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water, determined in accordance with subsection (3), at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry where effluent is deposited in that water via the final discharge point is less than or equal to 0.016 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N), and if

  • (a) the acute lethality of the effluent — as determined in accordance with Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 using the procedure set out in section 6 of that Method and the Procedure for pH Stabilization EPS 1/RM/50 — is primarily because of the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent; or

  • (b) the effluent is acutely lethal because the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent deposited via the final discharge point is greater than or equal to 1.25 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N) at 15°C ± 1°C, determined in accordance with section 14.

Samples

(2) The determination referred to in paragraph (1)(b) must

  • (a) for an intermittent wastewater system, be based on at least one sample of effluent; and

  • (b) for a continuous wastewater system, be based on at least two samples of effluent taken 7 days apart.

Determination of NH3 concentration in water

(3) The concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water referred to in subsection (1) must be determined in accordance with the following formula:

Form detailed information can be found in the surrounding text

where

total ammonia is the concentration of total ammonia in that water — namely, un-ionized ammonia (NH3) plus ionized ammonia (NH4+) — determined in accordance with subsection (4), expressed in mg/L as nitrogen (N);

pKa is 0.09018 + 2729.92/T, where T is the ambient water temperature in kelvin; and

pH is the pH of that water.

Determination of concentration of total ammonia in water

(4) The concentration of total ammonia in the water referred to in subsection (3) must be determined

  • (a) using a total ammonia test; or

  • (b) using a method of estimation that is based on generally accepted engineering practices.

Periods for application

(5) An initial application for a temporary authorization to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia must be made within 30 days after, as the case may be, the determination referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) has been made. Applications to extend the temporary authorization must be made at least 90 days before the expiry of the authorization.

Application

Required information

35. An application for a temporary authorization to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia in respect of a wastewater system must contain the following information:

  • (a) the owner’s and the operator’s name, civic and postal addresses, telephone number and, if any, email address and fax number;

  • (b) the name, title, civic and postal addresses, telephone number and, if any, email address and fax number, of a contact person;

  • (c) if any, the wastewater system’s name and civic address;

  • (d) the latitude and longitude of the final discharge point expressed in decimal degrees in accordance with subsection 18(3);

  • (e) in relation to the determination of the acute lethality of the effluent

    • (i) if that determination is the one referred to in paragraph 34(1)(a),

      • (A) the result of that determination, including, for each sample on which that determination was based, the information referred to in section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and section 3 of the Procedure for pH Stabilization EPS 1/RM/50, and

      • (B) information establishing that, when that determination was made, any acute lethality of the effluent was primarily because of the concentration of the un-ionized ammonia in the effluent, or

    • (ii) if that determination is the one referred to in paragraph 34(1)(b), the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in each of the samples referred to in subsection 34(2);

  • (f) information that establishes that, when the application was made, the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water, determined in accordance with subsection 34(3), at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry where effluent is deposited in that water via the final discharge point was less than or equal to 0.016 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N); and

  • (g) a statement signed and dated by the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative, that certifies that information provided in the application is true, accurate and complete

    • (i) in the case of information that was prepared by the owner or operator, to the best of the owner’s or operator’s information and belief, and

    • (ii) in the case of information that was that was prepared by other persons with sufficient knowledge to evaluate that information, to the best of the owner’s or operator’s information and belief, based on representations made to them by those persons.

Conditions of Issuance

Required information

36. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the authorization officer must issue the temporary authorization to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia for a period of three years from January 1, 2015, or the date of issuance if that date is later, if

  • (a) the application contains the information required under section 35;

  • (b) the information referred to in paragraph 35(e) has established that the effluent was, at the time of the application, acutely lethal because of the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in it; and

  • (c) the information referred to in paragraph 35(f) has established that the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water, determined in accordance with subsection 34(3), at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry where effluent was deposited in that water via the final discharge point was less than or equal to 0.016 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N).

Refusal

(2) The authorization officer must refuse to issue the temporary authorization if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information contained in, or provided in support of, the application is false or misleading in a material respect.

Conditions on Temporary Authorization

Authorized deposits

37. A holder of a temporary authorization to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia in respect of a wastewater system is authorized to deposit, via the final discharge point, effluent

  • (a) that satisfies the conditions set out in paragraphs 6(1)(a) to (c); and

  • (b) that results in a concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water, determined in accordance with subsection 34(3), at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry where effluent is deposited in that water via the final discharge point that is less than or equal to 0.016 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N).

Compliance Obligations

General requirements

38. The holder of a temporary authorization to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia in respect of a wastewater system must during the period of authorization

  • (a) comply with sections 7 to 10, 12 to 14, 16 to 22 and 48;

  • (b) for each sample taken under subsection 10(1), (2) or (3), determine, or cause the determination of, the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent, in accordance with section 14; and

  • (c) once each August, determine, or cause the determination of, the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water referred to in paragraph 37(b).

Scope of Temporary Authorization and Revocation

Period and content

39. A temporary authorization, and any extension of it, to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia must be in the form set out in Schedule 5 and contain the following information:

  • (a) the information referred to in paragraphs 35(a) and (c);

  • (b) the latitude and longitude of the final discharge point;

  • (c) the date of issuance of the temporary authorization and of any extension of it;

  • (d) the period of authorization; and

  • (e) a statement that the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water, determined in accordance with subsection 34(3), at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry where effluent is deposited in that water via the final discharge point must be less than or equal to 0.016 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N).

Extension

40. (1) A temporary authorization may, on application, be extended for successive periods of three years. If that application is based on a determination of the acute lethality of effluent referred to in paragraph 34(1)(a), it must contain the information referred to in subparagraph 35(e)(i).

Issuance

(2) The authorization officer must — based on the information contained in the application for the extension, the monitoring reports sent under subsection 19(1) and the original application for the temporary authorization referred to in section 35 — extend the authorization if it is established that, when the application for an extension was made,

  • (a) the effluent was acutely lethal because of the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in it; and

  • (b) the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water, determined in accordance with subsection 34(3), at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry where effluent was deposited in that water via the final discharge point was less than or equal to 0.016 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N).

Correction of information

41. (1) If the owner or operator becomes aware that the information provided in an application for a temporary authorization, or for an extension of a temporary authorization, contains errors, they must, without delay, send a notice to the authorization officer, which indicates the reason for the errors and provides corrections, and make the certification under paragraph 35(g) with respect to the corrected application.

Corrected temporary authorization

(2) On receipt of a notice that provides corrections that, if provided with the application, would have affected the scope of the information referred to in section 39, the authorization officer must issue a corrected temporary authorization or corrected extension of a temporary authorization, as the case may be, as if the corrections together with the remaining information originally provided in the application were an application under section 35 or 40.

Revocation

42. (1) The authorization officer may revoke a temporary authorization, or an extended temporary authorization, to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia if

  • (a) the information contained in, as the case may be, the application for the temporary authorization referred to in section 35 or the application for the extended temporary authorization referred to in 40 is false or misleading in a material respect;

  • (b) the holder has, during the period of authorization, failed to comply with paragraph 37(a) or (b), any section referred to in paragraph 38(a), or paragraph 38(b) or (c); or

  • (c) new information indicates that a deposit under the temporary authorization or the extended temporary authorization has had or is likely to have an effect on fish, fish habitat or the use by man of fish that is more adverse than the worst of those effects that were anticipated when that authorization was issued.

Considerations

(2) When determining whether to revoke a temporary authorization or an extended temporary authorization, the authorization officer must consider, as applicable, whether the holder

  • (a) has a history of non-compliance with any provision referred to in paragraph (1)(b); or

  • (b) has carried out, or signed an undertaking to carry out, specified corrective measures to ensure compliance with any provision referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or to prevent or mitigate a more adverse effect referred to in paragraph (1)(c).

Representations

(3) The authorization officer is not permitted to revoke a temporary authorization or an extended temporary authorization unless they have provided the holder with

  • (a) written reasons for the proposed revocation; and

  • (b) an opportunity to be heard, by written representation, in respect of the proposed revocation.

TEMPORARY BYPASS AUTHORIZATION

Requirements

Deposit without or with partial treatment

43. (1) An owner or operator of a wastewater system may apply to an authorization officer for a temporary authorization to bypass at least one of the treatment processes normally applied to wastewater in the system and, as a result, to deposit effluent that contains any deleterious substance prescribed in section 5.

Conditions precedent

(2) An application for a temporary bypass authorization is not to be made unless

  • (a) the requirement to bypass those treatment processes arises from

    • (i) construction work to make changes to the system,

    • (ii) the maintenance of the system, or

    • (iii) the response to an anticipated event that is beyond the control of the owner or operator of the system; and

  • (b) the bypass is designed, within the constraints of technical and economic feasibility, to minimize the volume of effluent deposited and the concentration of deleterious substances prescribed in section 5 in the effluent deposited.

Period for application

(3) An application for a temporary bypass authorization must be made at least 45 days before the day on which the requirement referred to in paragraph (2)(a) is to arise.

Application

Required information

44. An application for a temporary bypass authorization must contain the following information:

  • (a) the owner’s and the operator’s name, civic and postal addresses, telephone number and, if any, email address and fax number;

  • (b) the name, title, civic and postal addresses, telephone number and, if any, email address and fax number, of a contact person;

  • (c) if any, the wastewater system’s name and civic address;

  • (d) an explanation of how the bypass is designed to minimize the volume of effluent deposited and the concentration of deleterious substances prescribed in section 5 in the effluent deposited during the construction work, the maintenance of the system or the response referred to in paragraph 43(2)(a), including a description of, and a schedule for, all steps that are to be taken to achieve that minimization;

  • (e) the latitude and longitude, expressed in decimal degrees in accordance with subsection 18(3), of

    • (i) the final discharge point, if the bypass results in the deposit of effluent via the system’s final discharge point, or

    • (ii) the overflow point, if the bypass results in wastewater being diverted to an overflow point of the wastewater system for deposit in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act;

  • (f) the period for which the bypass is required in order to allow for the construction work, for the maintenance of the system or for the response referred to in paragraph 43(2)(a);

  • (g) the approximate duration, expressed in hours, of the deposits referred to in subparagraph (e)(i) or (ii) or both;

  • (h) the estimated volume, expressed in m3, of those deposits; and

  • (i) a statement signed and dated by the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative, that certifies that information provided in the application is true, accurate and complete

    • (i) in the case of information that was prepared by the owner or operator, to the best of the owner’s or operator’s information and belief, and

    • (ii) in the case of information that was that was prepared by other persons with sufficient knowledge to evaluate that information, to the best of the owner’s or operator’s information and belief, based on representations made to them by those persons.

Conditions of Issuance

Required information

45. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the authorization officer must issue a temporary bypass authorization if

  • (a) the authorization officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the conditions set out in paragraphs 43(2)(a) and (b) are satisfied; and

  • (b) the application contains the information required under section 44.

Duration of temporary bypass authorization

(2) The temporary bypass authorization is to be issued for the period that, in the authorization officer’s opinion,

  • (a) is required in order to allow for the construction work, for the maintenance of the system or for the response referred to in paragraph 43(2)(a); and

  • (b) will mitigate any adverse effects on fish, fish habitat or the use by man of fish to the extent possible given the requirement referred to in paragraph 43(2)(a) for which the bypass authorization arises.

Refusal — adverse effects

(3) The authorization officer may refuse to issue the temporary authorization if they have reasonable grounds to believe that its issuance, for any period, would result in adverse effects on fish, fish habitat or the use by man of fish that cannot be mitigated.

Refusal — false or misleading information

(4) The authorization officer must refuse to issue the temporary authorization if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information contained in, or provided in support of, the application is false or misleading in a material respect.

Issuance

Content of authorization

46. A temporary bypass authorization is to be issued for a period that is sufficient to allow for the construction work, for the maintenance of the system or for the response referred to in paragraph 43(2)(a) and the authorization must be in the form set out in Schedule 6 and contain the following information:

  • (a) the information referred to in paragraphs 44(a), (c) and (e);

  • (b) the date of issuance; and

  • (c) the period of authorization.

Correction of information

47. (1) If the owner or operator becomes aware that the information provided in an application for a temporary bypass authorization contains errors, they must, without delay, send a notice to the authorization officer, which indicates the reason for the errors and provides corrections, and make the certification under paragraph 44(i) with respect to the corrected application.

Corrected authorization

(2) On receipt of a notice that provides corrections that, if provided with the application, would have affected the scope of the information referred to in section 46 contained in the temporary bypass authorization, the authorization officer must issue a corrected temporary bypass authorization as if the corrections together with the remaining information originally provided in the application were an application under section 44.

GENERAL

Electronic applications

48. (1) An application for a transitional authorization or a temporary authorization must be sent electronically in the form and format specified by the Minister of the Environment and must bear the electronic signature of the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative.

Paper

(2) If the Minister of the Environment has not specified an electronic form and format or if it is not feasible to send the application electronically in accordance with subsection (1) because of circumstances beyond the control of the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative, the application must be sent on paper, signed by the owner or operator, or their duly authorized representative, and in the form and format specified by the Minister of the Environment. However, if no form and format have been so specified, it may be in any form and format.

Registry of authorizations

49. The Minister of the Environment must maintain a registry, for examination by the public, that contains a copy of each transitional authorization, each temporary authorization to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia and each temporary bypass authorization that has been issued under this Part, as they may be modified from time to time, and that has not been revoked.

COMING INTO FORCE

On registration

50. (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

January 1, 2013

(2) Subsections 6(2) to (6), sections 7 , 8, 10, 12 to 14 and 16, paragraphs 17(a), (b) and (d) to (g) and sections 18 to 20, 23 to 27, 30, 31, 34 to 36, 39, 41, 48 and 49 come into force on January 1, 2013.

January 1, 2015

(3) Subsections 6(1) and (7), sections 11, 15, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 40 and 42 to 47 come into force on January 1, 2015.

January 1, 2021 — paragraphs 6(1)(c) and 28(1)(c) in relation to certain owners or operators

(4) Despite subsection (3), paragraphs 6(1)(c) and 28(1)(c) come into force on January 1, 2021 in relation to an owner or operator of a wastewater system that has, on the day on which these Regulations are registered, an average daily volume of effluent deposited annually via its final discharge point of less than 5 000 m3, determined on the basis of its average design rate of flow of influent.

SCHEDULE 1
(Section 1)

AUTHORIZATION OFFICERS

Item

Column 1

Province

Column 2

Owner

Column 3

Position

1.

Ontario

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of Ontario or another Ontario body or municipality or another local authority in Ontario

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Ontario in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Ontario related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Ontario in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Ontario related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

2.

Quebec

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of Quebec or another Quebec body or municipality or another local authority in Quebec

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Quebec in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Quebec related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Quebec in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Quebec related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

3.

Nova Scotia

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of Nova Scotia or another Nova Scotia body or municipality or another local authority in Nova Scotia

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Nova Scotia in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Nova Scotia in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

4.

New Brunswick

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of a New Brunswick or another New Brunswick body or municipality or another local authority in New Brunswick

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for New Brunswick in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and New Brunswick related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for New Brunswick in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and New Brunswick related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

5.

Manitoba

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of Manitoba or another Manitoba body or municipality or another local authority in Manitoba

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Manitoba in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Manitoba related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Manitoba in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Manitoba related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

6.

British Columbia

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

 

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of British Columbia or another British Columbia body or municipality or another local authority in British Columbia

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for British Columbia in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and British Columbia related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for British Columbia in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and British Columbia related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

7.

Prince Edward Island

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of Prince Edward Island or another Prince Edward Island body or municipality or another local authority in Prince Edward Island

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Prince Edward Island in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Prince Edward Island related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Prince Edward Island in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Prince Edward Island related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

8.

Saskatchewan

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of Saskatchewan or another Saskatchewan body or municipality or another local authority in Saskatchewan

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Saskatchewan in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Saskatchewan in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

9.

Alberta

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of Alberta or another Alberta body or municipality or another local authority in Alberta

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Alberta in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Alberta related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Alberta in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Alberta related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

10.

Newfoundland and Labrador

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Her Majesty in right of Newfoundland and Labrador or another Newfoundland and Labrador body or municipality or another local authority in Newfoundland and Labrador

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Newfoundland and Labrador in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Newfoundland and Labrador in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

11.

Yukon

Her Majesty in right of Canada, another federal body or an Aboriginal organization referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(D) of these Regulations

Manager, Wastewater Section

Environment Stewardship Branch

Department of the Environment (Canada)

Government of Yukon or another Yukon body or municipality or another local authority in Yukon

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Yukon in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Yukon related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

Entity referred to in clause 18(1)(d)(iii)(E) of these Regulations

(a) The holder of a position that is designated as an authorization officer for the purpose of these Regulations for Yukon in a written agreement between the governments of Canada and Yukon related to the administration of these Regulations that is published in the Canada Gazette; and

(b) in the absence of such an agreement, Manager, Wastewater Section, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment (Canada)

SCHEDULE 2
(Section 4, subsections 18(1), 24(2), 25(1) and 26(2))

SYSTEM OF POINTS — FINAL DISCHARGE POINT

INTERPRETATION

Definitions

1. The following definitions apply in this Schedule.

“bulk flow ratio” means the ratio of the average rate of flow of a watercourse during a year to the average rate of flow of effluent that is deposited in that watercourse during that year. (coefficient de débit brut)

“marine port waters” means the waters of a well-flushing sea port. (eaux d’un port maritime)

“open marine waters”, in relation to a final discharge point, means salt waters in an area defined by an arc of 135° extending 20 km from the point of entry in relation to the final discharge point, if there is no land within that area. (eaux libres en milieu marin)

TABLE

Item

Column 1

Conditions and Water

Column 2

Criteria

Column 3

Points

1.

Average daily volume of effluent, expressed in m3, deposited during the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) of these Regulations upon which the application is based

(a) > 100 and ≤ 500

(b) > 500 and ≤ 2 500

(c) > 2 500 and ≤ 17 500

(d) > 17 500 and ≤ 50 000

(e) > 50 000

5 points

10 points

15 points


25 points


35 points

2.

The average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBODA) due to the quantity of CBOD matter in the effluent and the average concentration of suspended solids (SSA) in the effluent, both expressed in mg/L, during the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) of these Regulations upon which the application is based

(CBODA + SSA)/5

points as per formula in column 2

3.

If, during the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) of these Regulations upon which the application is based, chlorine, or one of its compounds, was used in the treatment of wastewater in the wastewater system, as applicable, paragraph (a) or (b) of Column 2

a) average concentration of total residual chlorine in the effluent deposited via the final discharge point is > 0.02 mg/L

(b) effluent is not dechlorinated before it is deposited

10 points






10 points

4.

The maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia, expressed in mg/L as nitrogen (N), in the effluent deposited during the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) of these Regulations upon which the application is based

≥ 1.25 at 15°C ± 1°C

20 points

5.

Water where effluent is deposited via the final discharge point (highest value that applies)

(a) open marine waters

(b) marine port waters

(c) lake, natural wetland, reservoir, estuary, enclosed bay

(d) watercourse with bulk flow ratio >100

(e) watercourse with bulk flow ratio ≥10 and ≤100

(f) watercourse with bulk flow ratio <10

(g) shellfish harvesting area within 500 m of the point of entry where effluent is deposited in the water via the final discharge point

5 points

10 points

20 points



15 points


20 points



25 points


20 points

SCHEDULE 3
(Subsections 24(2), 25(1) and 26(2))

SYSTEM OF POINTS — COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW POINTS

Item

Column 1

Factors

Column 2

Criteria

Column 3

Points

1.

The ratio — during the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) of these Regulations upon which the application is based — of the estimated average dry weather flow that circulates in the combined sewer at the overflow point to the estimated average dry weather flow that is deposited via the final discharge point, expressed as a percentage

(a) ≥ 50%

(b) ≥ 25% and < 50%

(c) ≥ 10% and < 25%

(d) < 10%

35 points

25 points

15 points

10 points

2.

The number of deposits via the overflow point during the period of 12 consecutive months referred to in subsection 24(1) of these Regulations upon which the application is based

(a) > 25 deposits

(b) > 15 deposits and ≤ 25 deposits

(c) > 5 deposits and ≤ 15 deposits

(d) 5 deposits or less

35 points

25 points


15 points


5 points

3.

Water where effluent is deposited via each overflow point (the sum of points for all that apply)

(a) shellfish harvesting area within 500 m of any point of entry where effluent is deposited in the water via the overflow point

(b) an area where an aquatic species that is a protected species frequents or is found, or that is a fish spawning area is, within 500 m of any point of entry where effluent is deposited in the water via the overflow point

(c) lake, natural wetland, reservoir, estuary, or enclosed bay

20 points






10 points










10 points

SCHEDULE 4
(Section 30)

TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION

[Name and address of owner or operator]

Name of owner:

Address of owner:

Name of operator:

Address of operator:

in respect of [name and address of wastewater system]

Name of wastewater system:

Address of wastewater system:

(a) is (are) hereby authorized as of January 1, 2015 to deposit effluent that contains the deleterious substances set out below until [expiry date]*______________ from [identify final discharge point and, in the case of a fictional consolidated wastewater system, identify the final discharge point for each of the original wastewater systems] ______________.

Deleterious Substance

Average Concentration over the Calendar Year, Quarter or Month

Maximum Concentration over the Calendar Year, Quarter or Month

CBOD matter

mg/L of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

not applicable

suspended solids (SS)

mg/L

not applicable

un-ionized ammonia (NH3)

not applicable

mg/L, as nitrogen (N) at 15°C ± 1°C

(b) is (are) authorized as of [January 1, 2015 or January 1, 2021] ______________ to deposit effluent whose average concentration of total residual chlorine does not exceed 0.02 mg/L until [expiry date]* ______________ from [identify final discharge point and, in the case of a fictional consolidated wastewater system, identify the final discharge point for each of the original wastewater systems] ______________. [if chlorine, or one of its compounds, was used in the treatment of wastewater in the wastewater system]

IMPORTANT: Please refer to section 28 of these Regulations for the conditions related to this authorization and section 29 of these Regulations for the compliance obligations for this authorization. In addition, please note that this authorization may be revoked under section 32 of these Regulations.

* This authorization may expire in accordance with section 33 of these Regulations on a date earlier than the date indicated above as the expiry date.

Authorization Officer:

[Signature]

Date:

[Name]

[Title]

SCHEDULE 5
(Section 39)

TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION TO DEPOSIT EFFLUENT THAT CONTAINS UN-IONIZED AMMONIA

[Name and address of owner or operator]

Name of owner:

Address of owner:

Name of operator:

Address of operator:

in respect of [name and address of wastewater system]

Name of wastewater system:

Address of wastewater system:

is (are) authorized, as of [date] ________________, to deposit effluent that contains un-ionized ammonia until [date] _________________ from [identify final discharge point] _________________ if the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the water at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry where effluent is deposited in that water via the final discharge point is less than or equal to 0.016 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N).

IMPORTANT: Please refer to section 38 of these Regulations for the compliance obligations for this authorization. In addition, please note that this authorization may be revoked under section 42 of the Regulations.

Authorization Officer:

[Signature] Date:

[Name]

[Title]

SCHEDULE 6
(Section 46)

TEMPORARY BYPASS AUTHORIZATION

[Name and address of owner or operator]

Name of owner:

Address of owner:

Name of operator:

Address of operator:

in respect of [name and address of wastewater system]

Name of wastewater system:

Address of wastewater system:

is (are) authorized, as of [date] _______________ for [number of hours] until [date] ________________ to deposit effluent from [identify discharge point] _________________.

Authorization Officer:

[Signature] Date:

[Name]

[Title]

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issue: Effluent from wastewater systems represents one of the largest sources of pollution, by volume, in Canadian waters. Negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems and to Canadians from harmful substances found in wastewater effluent have been documented domestically and internationally for over 20 years. In Canada, the management of wastewater is subject to shared jurisdiction, which has led to inconsistent regulatory regimes and varying levels of treatment across the country. Treatment levels range from very good in many areas to poor or no treatment, mostly on the coasts. Through various consultation processes, interested parties have consistently indicated the need for all levels of government to develop a harmonized approach to managing the wastewater sector in Canada.

To address this situation, the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (the Regulations) were developed under the Fisheries Act. The goal of the Regulations is to set national baseline effluent quality standards achievable through secondary treatment or equivalent. The Regulations deliver on a federal commitment in the 2009 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CCME Strategy). The CCME Strategy represents a collective agreement to ensure that wastewater effluent is managed under a harmonized framework that is protective of the environment and human health, with each jurisdiction using its authority. It is anticipated that bilateral administrative agreements between the federal government and each of the provinces and Yukon will be established to define the primary interface for administration of the Regulations.

Description: The Regulations have been developed under the Fisheries Act and fulfill a commitment under the CCME Strategy for the establishment of national effluent quality standards. To meet these standards, wastewater systems need to have at least a secondary level of wastewater treatment or equivalent. The objective of the Regulations is to reduce the threats to fish, fish habitat and human health from fish consumption by decreasing the level of harmful substances deposited to Canadian surface water from wastewater effluent.

In addition to the national effluent quality standards, the Regulations also specify the conditions to be met in order to deposit effluent containing deleterious substances, such as requirements concerning toxicity, effluent monitoring, record-keeping and reporting. The deleterious substances specified under the Regulations include carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demanding matter (CBOD matter), suspended solids, total residual chlorine and un-ionized ammonia.

The Regulations apply to any wastewater system that, when it deposits effluent from its final discharge point, deposits a deleterious substance to surface water (see footnote 1) and that is designed to collect an average daily volume of influent of 100 m3 or more or that actually collects an average daily volume of influent of 100 m3 or more during a year. The Regulations do not apply to any wastewater system located in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and north of the 54th parallel in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, as further research is required to set appropriate standards for the extreme climatic conditions found in those areas.

An owner or operator of a wastewater system depositing effluent not meeting the national effluent quality standards may apply for a transitional authorization. It establishes the conditions under which such a system may continue to operate and sets the risk-based timeline to meet the national effluent quality standards. Wastewater systems posing a high risk are required to meet the effluent quality standards by December 31, 2020, those posing medium risk by December 31, 2030, and those posing low risk by December 31, 2040.

The Regulations come into force through a phased approach. Effluent monitoring requirements, record-keeping and reporting requirements, and the provisions allowing for transitional or temporary authorizations to be applied for and issued come into force on January 1, 2013. The requirement to meet the effluent quality standards comes into force on January 1, 2015, with the exception of the standard for total residual chlorine, which comes fully into force on January 1, 2021.

Cost-benefit statement: A cost-benefit analysis reveals that the Regulations will likely result in significant net benefits nationally, even with only a partial quantification of benefits. While the estimated costs of the Regulations are significant (in the order of $5.5 billion discounted to 2011 dollars), the overall quantified benefits are almost three times this amount, totalling $16.5 billion. This results in a benefit to cost ratio of over 3:1 for the country as a whole.

The majority of the costs associated with Regulations relate to capital and operating costs for wastewater systems requiring upgrades. Non-capital costs, including monitoring and reporting costs, represent a small proportion of the total costs and will be incurred by owners and operators of wastewater systems. Combined, all of the costs total $5.5 billion in present value terms.

There are numerous benefits to improved wastewater effluent quality. These include healthier fish and aquatic ecosystems; increased commercial fisheries use; reduced health risks from the consumption of fish and recreational contact; increased recreational use; higher property values; reduced water supply costs for municipalities and industry; and increased value placed on ecosystem and water quality by individuals and households for the benefit of both current and future generations.

It is difficult to quantify these benefits, so two measures that could be applied broadly to communities across Canada were selected. These include the willingness to pay for improved water quality and the property value increases linked to improved water quality. The total willingness to pay for communities that need to upgrade their wastewater systems across Canada is estimated to be $1.7 billion in present value terms. The total property value increases that would likely result are estimated to be worth $14.8 billion in present value terms. Note that these two methods only provide a partial measure of the full benefits of the Regulations. There are many benefits that cannot be quantified with the available information, such as the impact of increased access to shellfish harvesting areas or the impacts on local tourism. Thus, the total benefits are expected to be even higher than those presented here.

Business and consumer impacts: Businesses and consumers may face higher taxes or utility rates to help pay for the costs associated with the required capital upgrades in a number of communities. There is insufficient information available to the federal government to predict the potential magnitude of such increases. However, as public infrastructure is funded through a variety of sources, impacts on businesses and consumers in particular communities would be expected to be relatively small.

To limit the administrative burden of the Regulations, Environment Canada will develop an electronic reporting tool for use by all regulators and regulatees. This tool will allow reports to be submitted and tracked electronically.

In terms of competitiveness impacts, improved water quality from the Regulations will result in a number of benefits: improvements in water quality are expected to have a positive impact on the fishing and seafood industry, valued at $5 billion in 2005; it should serve to reduce contaminant-related harvest closures in the shellfish industry, valued at $1.5 billion in 2008, and it could help remove barriers to markets for seafood, e.g. mussel exports from Eastern Canada. Benefits are likely to include fewer beach closures and an increased ability of Canadians and visitors to enjoy water-based recreation throughout Canada. This is expected to positively impact the tourism industry, which represents approximately 2% of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: The Regulations include national baseline standards for effluent deposited from wastewater systems across the country. These effluent standards allow Canada to catch up with similar standards adopted in both the United States and the European Union.

The Regulations enhance coordination between Canada and the United States with respect to transboundary water quality. This is especially true in the Great Lakes, where Canada and the United States are party to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which includes commitments for both countries to cooperate on the clean up of industrial effluent and wastewater effluent.

The Regulations should also enhance cooperation and coordination with the global community. Wastewater effluent is one of the key issues under the Global Programme of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, which Canada adopted in 1995 and responded to with its own National Programme of Action (NPA). The Regulations should help respond to the NPA on this issue.

Performance measurement and evaluation plan: A performance measurement and evaluation plan has been prepared for the Regulations. It outlines the outcomes that will be measured and evaluated to assess the performance of the Regulations. A key outcome is the regulated community being in compliance with the regulatory requirements. Another is that national effluent quality standards are achieved within prescribed timelines and are maintained. The overall outcome would be that threats to fish, fish habitat and human health from fish consumption associated with the release of deleterious and harmful substances in wastewater effluent are reduced.

These outcomes will be evaluated in phases to capture the effectiveness of the development, administration and implementation of the Regulations. Effectiveness indicators include the percentage of the regulated community that is in compliance with the limits for effluent quality. The reduction in loadings of deleterious substances, as defined under the Regulations, will also be used to evaluate these outcomes and will be determined annually.

Reporting on the progress and performance of the Regulations will occur through departmental performance reports and the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. With respect to the assessment of the overall effectiveness of the administration and implementation of the Regulations, Environment Canada will work with the departmental head of evaluation to determine the scope of the evaluation, as well as the appropriate timing.

Issue

Effluent from wastewater systems represents one of the largest sources of pollution, by volume, in Canadian waters. Negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems and to Canadians from harmful substances found in untreated or undertreated wastewater effluent have been documented domestically and internationally for over 20 years. In Canada, the management of wastewater is subject to shared jurisdiction, which sometimes has produced regulatory regimes that are inconsistent, resulting in varying levels of treatment across the country, ranging from very good in many areas to poor or no treatment, mostly on the coasts. Interested parties have consistently indicated the need for all levels of government to develop a harmonized approach to managing wastewater effluent in Canada.

Wastewater effluent has been shown to have a variety of harmful impacts on ecosystem health, fisheries resources and human health in Canada. (see footnote 2) Ecosystem impacts can include fish kills; algal blooms; the destruction of habitat from sedimentation, debris, and increased water flow; and short- and long-term toxicity from chemical contaminants; along with the accumulation and magnification of chemicals at higher levels of the food chain. Human health risks can also stem from the release of untreated or inadequately treated wastewater effluent. In some circumstances, it could contaminate drinking water sources with bacteria, protozoans, (see footnote 3) and several other toxic substances. Canadians may also be put at risk from consuming contaminated fish and shellfish and engaging in recreational activities in contaminated waters. In terms of fisheries resources, wastewater effluent can, for instance, limit the full potential of the Canadian shellfish industry, an industry with sales of $1.5 billion per year, by contributing to the closure of harvesting areas. It can also impact tourism by contributing to lost recreational opportunities resulting from beach closures and restrictions on other beneficial water uses. (see footnote 4)

The impacts of wastewater effluent largely depend on several site-specific factors. These include the volume of effluent discharged; the level of treatment and resulting effluent quality; the characteristics of the receiving environment; and climatic conditions. However, the sheer volume of wastewater effluent being discharged to Canadian surface water from over 3 700 wastewater systems, conservatively estimated at 6 trillion litres per year, also raises concern. (see footnote 5) For instance, over 150 billion litres of this are likely untreated. Thus, improving wastewater effluent quality would help ensure that Canada’s precious fisheries and water resources are preserved and protected now and in the future.

To address this situation, the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (Regulations) were developed under the Fisheries Act. The goal of the Regulations is to set national baseline effluent quality standards achievable through secondary treatment or equivalent. The Regulations deliver on a federal commitment in the 2009 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent (CCME Strategy). The CCME Strategy represents a collective agreement to ensure that wastewater effluent is managed under a harmonized framework that is protective of the environment and human health, with each jurisdiction using its authority. It is anticipated that bilateral administrative agreements between the federal government and each of the provinces and Yukon will be established to define the primary interface for administration of the Regulations.

Objectives

The objective of the Regulations is to reduce the threats to fish, fish habitat and human health from fish consumption by decreasing the level of deleterious and harmful substances deposited to Canadian surface water from wastewater effluent. To achieve the objective, the Regulations set national effluent quality standards that require secondary wastewater treatment or equivalent in wastewater systems (see footnote 6) across Canada.

This objective is expected to be fully achieved through risk-based implementation timelines that extend to 2040. However, a significant proportion of large wastewater systems not currently meeting the standards are anticipated to be high risk. These would be required to meet the standards by the end of 2020. This approach provides time for owners and operators of systems requiring infrastructure upgrades to plan, finance, and implement cost-effective measures to meet the required standards.

Description

The Regulations have been developed under the Fisheries Act and set national effluent quality standards for specified deleterious substances in effluent deposited from wastewater systems. They also specify the conditions to be met in order to be authorized to deposit effluent containing deleterious substances, such as requirements concerning toxicity, effluent monitoring requirements, and record-keeping and reporting requirements.

Application

The Regulations apply to any wastewater system that, when it deposits effluent from its final discharge point, deposits a deleterious substance to surface water and that is designed to collect an average daily volume of influent of 100 m3 or more or that actually collects an average daily volume of influent of 100 m3 or more during a year. The Regulations define two types of wastewater systems. Intermittent wastewater systems (typically lagoons) are systems with a hydraulic retention time (see footnote 7) of at least 90 days and that deposit effluent during at most four discharge periods per year, with each period being separated by at least seven days. Continuous wastewater systems are any other wastewater systems.

The Regulations do not apply to any wastewater system located in the Northwest Territories, in Nunavut or north of the 54th parallel in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. A window of up to five years was provided in the CCME Strategy to undertake research to set appropriate standards for the extreme climatic conditions found in those areas. Furthermore, discharges from separate storm sewer systems are not covered under the Regulations.

Deleterious substances

Deleterious substance is defined in subsection 34(1) of the Fisheries Act. (see footnote 8) In summary, a deleterious substance is something that would degrade or alter the quality of water so that it is rendered deleterious to fish or fish habitat or to the use of fish by people. The deleterious substances specified under the Regulations include carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demanding matter (CBOD matter), suspended solids, total residual chlorine and un-ionized ammonia. The effluent quality standards for these substances are as follows:

  • average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) due to the quantity of CBOD matter in the effluent of less than or equal to 25 mg/L;
  • average concentration of suspended solids in the effluent of less than or equal to 25 mg/L;
  • average concentration of total residual chlorine in the effluent of less than or equal to 0.02 mg/L; and
  • maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent of less than 1.25 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N), at 15°C ± 1°C.

The average CBOD and average concentrations of suspended solids and total residual chlorine are based on yearly, quarterly or monthly averages depending on the annual average daily volume of effluent deposited from the final discharge point of the wastewater system.

These effluent quality standards are indicative of a secondary level of treatment or equivalent. Such a level of treatment removes over 95% of the total mass of conventional pollutants in wastewater (i.e. CBOD matter, suspended solids and nutrients). Significant amounts of non-conventional pollutants and bacteria that may be present are also removed through such treatment.

Effluent monitoring

Effluent monitoring and reporting requirements are also specified under the Regulations. Owners or operators of wastewater systems may be required to install, maintain and calibrate flow monitoring equipment. All owners or operators of wastewater systems are required to monitor the volume and the composition of the effluent. The Regulations prescribe minimum sampling frequencies and the type of sample to be collected based on the annual average daily volume of effluent deposited and the type of wastewater system. Systems that deposit larger annual average daily volumes of effluent are required to monitor more frequently than those with smaller volumes.

Reporting and record-keeping

The Regulations require that monitoring reports be sent annually or quarterly, depending on the size and type of the wastewater system, to the authorization officer. The Regulations also require owners and operators of wastewater systems with combined sewers to record information on the quantity and frequency of effluent discharged from them and to annually report that information. Records, copies of reports and any supporting documents, as prescribed in the Regulations, are required to be kept for at least five years at the wastewater system or at any other place in Canada where they could be inspected. Information pertaining to monitoring equipment needs to be kept for at least five years after the monitoring equipment is no longer used, and the identification report, as it may be updated, needs to be kept for at least five years after the wastewater system is decommissioned.

Transitional and temporary authorizations

An owner or operator of a wastewater system depositing effluent not meeting the national effluent quality standards for CBOD and/or the concentration of suspended solids may apply for a transitional authorization between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014. Transitional authorizations establish the conditions under which such a system may continue to operate and set the risk-based timeline to meet the national effluent quality standards. This approach considers the characteristics of the system’s effluent, the receiving environment and, if applicable, characteristics of overflow locations from combined sewers. (see footnote 9) Wastewater systems posing a high risk are required to meet the effluent quality standards by December 31, 2020, those posing medium risk by December 31, 2030, and those posing low risk by December 31, 2040.

The Regulations also provide a mechanism to apply for temporary authorizations. One type of temporary authorization authorizes the deposit of an effluent that is acutely lethal because of the concentration of un-ionized ammonia under specific circumstances, including receiving environment considerations. The other temporary authorization authorizes the bypass of effluent under certain circumstances, such as planned maintenance or construction activities.

Consolidated wastewater systems

Owners of at least 10 wastewater systems that deposit effluent not meeting the national effluent quality standards for CBOD and/or the concentration of suspended solids and that intend to consolidate them into one or more systems may submit a consolidation plan to the authorization officer. This plan describes the modifications that would be required to the wastewater systems so that the consolidated wastewater system meets the national effluent quality standards. The submission of the consolidation plan allows the owners of the wastewater systems to reduce the number of transitional authorizations required and to limit the number of locations at which effluent monitoring is required.

Coming into force

Elements of the Regulations come into force at different times. An identification report must be submitted to the authorization officer between January 1, 2013, and May 15, 2013. Effluent monitoring requirements, certain record-keeping and reporting requirements, as well as the provisions allowing for transitional or temporary authorizations to be applied for and issued, come into force on January 1, 2013. The requirement to meet either the national effluent quality standards for CBOD, the concentrations of suspended solids and un-ionized ammonia, or the limits for those substances as authorized through transitional authorizations, come into force on January 1, 2015. The requirement to meet the effluent quality standard for total residual chlorine comes into force on January 1, 2015, for wastewater systems with an average daily design rate of flow of 5 000 m3 or more and comes into force on January 1, 2021, for all other wastewater systems.

Administration

Bilateral administrative agreements between the federal government and each province and Yukon are expected to be put in place to ensure the efficient administration of the Regulations. These would clarify roles and responsibilities with respect to administrative functions such as performing the functions of the authorization officer, compliance promotion and enforcement activities. These agreements will set a precedent in the area of managing wastewater in Canada. The federal government will administer the Regulations for those systems not covered by an agreement. Further details on the administration of the Regulations are provided under the “Cost to governments” and the “Implementation, enforcement and service standards” sections below.

Background

Wastewater systems vary in terms of design, depending on such things as the specific needs of communities, the quantity and quality of wastewater to be treated, and financial considerations. The treatment from such systems can be generally categorized into three levels — primary, secondary, or tertiary (advanced) treatment. All of these levels of treatment typically begin with a preliminary screening to remove large solid objects, debris, and grit. Primary treatment is the most basic form of treatment that relies on a mechanical process to physically separate settleable and floating solids from the water. Secondary treatment utilizes primary treatment and biological processes to remove additional suspended and dissolved solids from the water. Tertiary treatment is more than secondary treatment and is generally used to achieve a desired level of effluent quality for a particular substance. It can be accomplished using a number of physical, chemical or biological processes (e.g. carbon filters, reverse osmosis).

Municipalities own and operate the majority of wastewater systems in Canada. (see footnote 10) Wastewater systems are also owned and operated by provinces, territories, federal departments, agencies, First Nations communities and other entities. In addition, some wastewater systems, relatively smaller ones, are owned and operated by the private sector. Public-private management arrangements also exist in Canada, and they usually involve private sector operation and public sector ownership of wastewater systems.

Despite the increase in public infrastructure investment over the past decades, Canada’s wastewater systems are aging. A large percentage of these were constructed in the 1960s, and as of 2007, it was estimated that many facilities had passed over 60% of their useful life nationally. (see footnote 11) Thus, significant new investment will be required for this sector in the near future.

The number of Canadians receiving wastewater treatment has increased substantially since 1983, when approximately 70% of the population on sewers was served by some form of treatment. (see footnote 12) There are now over 3 700 wastewater systems in Canada, and, according to Environment Canada’s 2011 Municipal Water Use Report, more than 28 million people living in 1 523 municipalities were being served by wastewater collection and treatment in 2009. (see footnote 13) Of these, 79% were receiving at least secondary treatment (54.5% secondary mechanical, 17.4% tertiary level treatment and 6.8% waste stabilization ponds), while around 18% were receiving primary treatment. In spite of this progress, many parts of the country continue to discharge untreated wastewater into Canadian waters. Nationally, 3% of the population served by sewer systems had no treatment for their wastewater effluent.

Additionally, the degree of wastewater treatment varies greatly across Canada. For instance, there are much lower treatment levels for releases to coastal waters than inland fresh waters. As reflected in Figure 1, two of the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, have less than 50% of their population served by sanitary sewer systems with secondary treatment or better. Additionally, British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick have 42%, 49% and 45% of their served population receiving less than secondary treatment, respectively. Conversely, inland provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have over 90% of their served population discharging to systems with secondary wastewater treatment. (see footnote 14)

Figure 1 –— Canadian Wastewater Performance, 2009 (see footnote 15)

Graphic information can be found in the surrounding text

Wastewater management in Canada

The management of wastewater involves all levels of government in Canada. Effluent from wastewater systems in Canada must comply with applicable federal legislation including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) and the Fisheries Act, as well as applicable provincial, territorial or water board legislation, permits or licenses. Due to this shared jurisdiction, the existing regulatory regimes have varying requirements that in many cases are not consistent.

Requirements in other jurisdictions

United States

In the United States, the Clean Water Act requires a minimum of secondary treatment at publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. In addition, permits are allocated to wastewater treatment facilities, placing limits on discharge and requiring monitoring and reporting.

European Union

The European Union has set similar standards to those that are in place in the United States. However, in the European Union, specifications apply depending on the size of the community. All communities having more than 15 000 people are required to use a minimum of secondary treatment of wastewater, or the equivalent thereof.

Current policy context

The Regulations have been developed through a process that builds on a history of consultation over the past decade on the management of wastewater effluent in Canada. For instance, Environment Canada presented a risk management strategy for wastewater effluent during consultation sessions held in the fall of 2002. Stakeholder feedback indicated strong support for a harmonized approach to wastewater management, which included implementing preventive or control actions for pollutants and contaminants in wastewater and a federal-provincial-territorial agreement on the management of wastewater effluent. Many interested parties stated their desire for regulations under the Fisheries Act to clarify the current requirement of the prohibition on the deposit of deleterious substances. Subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits anyone from depositing or permitting the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish, or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance, or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance, may enter any such water.

Environment Canada subsequently developed preventive actions for chlorine and ammonia. On December 4, 2004, the Minister of the Environment published in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, a Notice requiring the preparation and implementation of pollution prevention plans for inorganic chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluents (the Notice) and a Guideline for the release of ammonia dissolved in water found in wastewater effluents (the Guideline) under CEPA 1999. The Notice and the Guideline outlined performance objectives for chlorine and ammonia, respectively, applicable to wastewater effluent. These instruments were selected to respond to the requirements of CEPA 1999, for substances added to Schedule 1, with the recognition that these substances would be further addressed as part of a harmonized approach to wastewater management.

In 2003, the CCME agreed to begin the development of a harmonized approach for the management of wastewater. The CCME Strategy addresses issues related to wastewater system effluent quality and governance. Included in the process to develop the CCME Strategy, Environment Canada developed a Proposed Regulatory Framework for Wastewater (October 2007). (see footnote 16) This work culminated in the endorsement of the CCME Strategy by the CCME on February 17, 2009. Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut did not endorse the CCME Strategy at that time.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Several regulatory and non-regulatory measures were considered. These are discussed below.

Status quo

Under the status quo, subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits anyone from depositing or permitting the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish, or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance, or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance, may enter any such water. This current prohibition is not always aligned with the regulatory regimes of the provinces and territories. This has resulted in various levels of wastewater treatment across Canada which means that Canadians do not necessarily enjoy similar levels of benefits. These benefits, for both current and future generations, include healthier fish and aquatic ecosystems, increased commercial fisheries use, reduced health risk from consumption of fish and recreational contact, increased recreational use, higher property values, reduced water supply costs for municipalities and industry, and increased value placed on ecosystem and water quality by individuals and households. A harmonized approach to the risk management of wastewater, including a baseline for effluent quality, is needed to manage the risks to fisheries resources, ecosystem health and human health posed by deleterious and harmful substances being deposited in Canadian surface water from wastewater effluent. The status quo has not achieved this objective and therefore was not considered appropriate.

Voluntary measures

Voluntary measures were considered for the management of wastewater effluent. Along with the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, voluntary tools such as guidelines or codes of practice could be structured under government authority. The main concern with these tools is their effectiveness in achieving the risk management objective. A voluntary measure is unlikely to result in a consistent effluent quality equivalent to that achieved by secondary level wastewater treatment as set out in the Regulations. For example, the Guidelines for Effluent Quality and Wastewater Treatment at Federal Establishments have been in place for federal facilities since 1976; however, the results have varied. Therefore, voluntary measures were not considered appropriate.

Market-based instruments

Market-based instruments were considered, but not adopted due to a lack of suitability. For instance, permit trading is most effective when covering deposits to a single receiving environment (e.g. a specific water body or watershed). This avoids cases where excessive releases are allowed in one region over another. Since the Regulations are intended to help address the current lack of consistency in wastewater treatment levels across Canada and provide improved clarity for the sector through the establishment of common national performance standards, such a market-based system was not considered to be appropriate in this case.

Regulatory measures

Regulations were considered to be the best option for achieving the objective of reducing the threats to fish, fish habitat and human health from fish consumption posed by wastewater effluent. Regulations that set limits resulting in effluent quality equivalent to that of secondary level wastewater treatment would achieve this objective. The Fisheries Act allows for the establishment of such regulations that permit the deposit of deleterious substances to specified levels. Regulations would also implement the Government of Canada’s commitment in the CCME Strategy to establish national standards for wastewater effluent in federal regulations. The limits on the deleterious substances would be nationally consistent and enforceable. Adherence to these limits would result in reduced levels of deleterious and harmful substances being discharged to surface water from wastewater systems in Canada. Without a nationally consistent regulatory approach, it would be much more difficult to ensure that all Canadians enjoyed a similar level of protection for their water resources. Therefore, the Regulations have been developed to achieve the desired objective.

Benefits and costs

The development of the Regulations included an analysis of the likely impacts of the initiative. The assessment included a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) that quantified, to the extent practical, the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory proposal. It also highlighted potential distributional impacts. Risk analysis was also conducted to assess how sensitive the results were to changes in key variables. The results of the overall impact analysis are presented below.

Impact analysis approach

The cost-benefit analysis methodology used to assess the Regulations was based on a framework established in a study conducted for the CCME as part of the background work undertaken for the development of the CCME Strategy. (see footnote 17) This framework was then adjusted and applied on a national scale in order to assess the specific scope and requirements of the Regulations.

The basic approach involved first identifying the wastewater systems that would need to be upgraded to meet the national effluent quality standards and estimating the cost of the upgrades. The likely environmental benefits resulting from the upgrades were then identified and put in dollar terms (i.e. monetized) to the extent practical given the available information. Two measures were used to quantify the benefits — willingness to pay (WTP) for surface water quality improvement and property value increases. Other costs associated with the Regulations were also assessed, such as administrative costs to wastewater system operators and costs to governments. All of the monetized costs and benefits were discounted to 2011 dollars using an 8% discount rate, and the net benefits were calculated. Various distributional impacts were also assessed.

Information for the analysis was provided by the CCME’s Economics and Funding Task Group (EFTG). (see footnote 18) In 2006, it collected data from all of the jurisdictions involved in developing the CCME Strategy (i.e. provinces, territories, and the federal government). Part of the information collected included data on the individual facilities that would need upgrading in each jurisdiction, as well as a preliminary risk ranking score indicating whether each facility likely represents a high, medium or low risk to the receiving environment. Data on federal facilities in Aboriginal communities was obtained from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems. The total number of facilities identified as needing upgrading to meet the national effluent quality standards and their associated risk rankings are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1 — National ranking of wastewater facilities in Canada

Jurisdiction

Number of Facilities Requiring Upgrades Based on National Ranking System

Low Risk 2040

Medium Risk 2030

High Risk 2020

Total

Alberta

3

30

2

35

British Columbia

0

4

8

12

Manitoba

0

81

0

81

New Brunswick

13

38

0

51

Newfoundland and Labrador

0

1

45

46

Nova Scotia

8

36

16

60

Ontario

99

4

3

106

Prince Edward Island

17

7

0

24

Quebec

0

144

30

174

Saskatchewan

0

29

1

30

Yukon

0

1

1

2

Federal

162

36

30

228

Total

302

411

136

849

High risk wastewater systems represent 16% of the total number of wastewater systems expected to need upgrading. Under the risk-based timelines, these would need to meet the national effluent quality standards included in the Regulations by December 31, 2020.

Main results

Monetizing all values in the quantified analysis and discounting to 2011 dollars enables an assessment of whether the quantified benefits of the Regulations are likely to exceed the costs. The results of this are presented in Table 2 below.

As the table shows, the quantified benefits of the Regulations exceed the costs by a considerable margin on a national level. They result in a net benefit of approximately $11 billion for the country as a whole. This represents a benefit to cost ratio of roughly 3:1, which means that the quantified benefits of the Regulations are approximately three times that of the costs on a national basis.

Table 2 — Benefits to costs ratio

Total benefit

$16,479,273,395

Total cost

$5,474,464,522

Benefit/cost

3:1

Further details on the costs, benefits, and net benefits are provided in the following sections.

Costs

The costs associated with the Regulations generally fall under two categories. The first is costs incurred by owners and operators of wastewater systems, while the second is costs incurred by governments charged with administering the Regulations. Each is described below.

Wastewater system costs

The majority of the costs associated with the Regulations relate to capital and operating costs for wastewater systems requiring upgrades. These were provided by the jurisdictions to the CCME’s EFTG in 2006 and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems in 2011. In addition, estimates of operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as other non-capital costs for monitoring and reporting requirements, were generated or taken from the CCME development work, as appropriate for the Regulations.

The total costs to wastewater system owners and operators are estimated to be $5.5 billion discounted at 8% and in 2011 dollars. Capital costs are expected to be approximately $3.0 billion, O&M around $1.7 billion, and other non-capital costs $748 million.

Other non-capital costs include monitoring and reporting costs. Monitoring equipment costs will be incurred where such equipment is not already in use.

Cost to governments

The other main costs that are likely to be directly incurred as a result of the Regulations will be borne by governments responsible for their administration. These administrative costs are characterized into three main categories including program, compliance promotion and enforcement.

The total cost to governments to implement the Regulations is expected to be $33 million. This is the present discounted value of the stream of costs in 2011 dollars. The total includes $18.2 million for program activities, such as serving as the authorization officer, performance measurement management and other administrative costs, and $5.25 million for compliance promotion activities, which will include workshops and outreach.

Enforcement costs are anticipated to total $9.1 million and will include inspections, investigations, and responses to alleged violations. Other costs include lab analysis, travel and other administrative costs.

The remaining $0.5 million represents costs that would be incurred by the federal government to develop and operate an electronic reporting system to be used by governments and wastewater system owners and operators for the input and tracking of information required under the Regulations.

Note that for the purposes of the analysis, the expected administrative costs of the Regulations are captured to give a sense of what the Regulations will require. However, it is anticipated that administration of the Regulations will fit in with ongoing regulatory activities within all of the jurisdictions. These activities ebb and flow as regulations pass from periods of high activity to lower activity over time. Thus, it is anticipated that existing resources should be sufficient to administer the Regulations over the time period considered, and no additional funding will be sought.

Benefits

Improving wastewater treatment levels in Canada is expected to have significant and wide-ranging benefits throughout the country. The national effluent quality standards included in the Regulations require the over 3 700 wastewater systems in Canada to provide at least a secondary treatment level or equivalent. Approximately a quarter of these are expected to need upgrading in order to meet this standard. As a result, pollution in Canada’s waterways would be reduced, leading to a number of important benefits for aquatic organisms, ecosystems and for the health of Canadians. The quantified benefits are described and then monetized to the extent practical below.

Non-monetized benefits

Upgrading wastewater systems in Canada currently not meeting the national effluent quality standards included in the Regulations is expected to lead directly to a reduction in the mass of pollutants being deposited to surface water. It is estimated that CBOD matter, which depletes available oxygen in water, will be reduced by 53 612 metric tonnes. The resulting increase in dissolved oxygen is expected to improve biodiversity in the aquatic environment. Suspended solids cloud water, can lead to the blanketing of spawning grounds and limit the effectiveness of disinfectants and are expected to be reduced by a total of 64 920 metric tonnes. Total phosphorous is expected to be reduced by 4 826 metric tonnes. This and other nutrients can lead to excessive plant growth and algae blooms in water, which can suffocate aquatic life, including fish, and foul beaches. Total ammonia is expected to be reduced by 16 000 metric tonnes. Reduced total ammonia levels improve dissolved oxygen levels in water, and the accompanying reductions in un-ionized ammonia reduce the toxic effects of wastewater deposits on fish and shellfish.

Limits for total residual chlorine (TRC) are also part of the national effluent quality standards in the Regulations. However, insufficient information is available to estimate the TRC loading reductions that would result from the wastewater system upgrades. Nevertheless, benefits are expected as the TRC that remains in wastewater effluent has the potential to cause toxic or harmful effects to aquatic life, even at very low concentrations. For instance, TRC in wastewater effluent can be lethal to fish and can cause changes in the structure of benthic invertebrate communities. (see footnote 19) Other effects on fish include damage to the gills and nervous system. (see footnote 20) Some forms of TRC have the potential to also impact public health (e.g. trihalomethanes), but human exposure to TRC in wastewater effluent should be rare.

Reduced pollutant loadings in wastewater can lead to a significant improvement in ecosystem health, as well as to important benefits to fisheries resources. The negative impacts of untreated sewage and its components are well understood and while impacts to shellfish are quickly recognized by most people, sewage has impacts on many species at many food chain levels, and contributes to overall habitat and water quality degradation. Reduced pollutants would bring related economic benefits that are recognized but difficult to measure.

In addition to those described above, higher quality wastewater effluent will lead to other benefits. These include healthier fish and aquatic ecosystems; increased commercial fisheries use; reduced health risk from consumption of fish and recreational contact; increased recreational use; higher property values; reduced water supply costs for municipalities and industry; and increased value placed on ecosystem and water quality by individuals and households for the benefit of both current and future generations. The above benefits are considerable but are difficult to quantify.

Monetized benefits

As discussed above, the environmental and societal benefits of the Regulations are many and varied. However, in practice it is difficult to monetize the full range of benefits. Therefore, the cost-benefit analysis of the Regulations focused on a subset of benefits, based on the approach taken in the CBA study done for the CCME. (see footnote 21) Two benefit measures were identified that can be applied broadly to the communities affected by the Regulations. These are households’ willingness to pay for surface water quality improvements and property value increases. Each of these benefits and the approach to monetize them are discussed below.

In terms of willingness to pay, a large number of studies from Canada and other countries show that members of households value improved surface water quality. The willingness of households to pay originates from changes in health risk, recreational opportunity, aesthetics and intrinsic values associated with ecosystem improvements. In practice, it is difficult to disentangle all of these benefits, and thus studies generally develop one overall aggregate value estimate. This is usually referred to as willingness-to-pay (WTP) for improved surface water quality.

As was done in the CBA study for CCME, three different methods were used to come up with an overall average WTP for the benefits of the Regulations. These three measures were averaged and used to estimate the benefits to households of improved surface water quality attributable to the Regulations. The method was reviewed and updated with the most recently available data. The revised analysis resulted in an average WTP of $1.7 billion for the country. This is in present value terms and expressed in 2011 dollars (PV-2011).

With respect to property value increases, studies dating back to the 1970s have shown a positive relationship between surface water quality and housing prices. As per the approach taken for the CCME CBA, (see footnote 22) a range of values between 5% and 10% were used in the assessment of the Regulations. As well, the number of properties that would experience an increase in property value was determined by estimating the number of dwellings within one kilometre of an improved water body, and the 2006 Census (see footnote 23) subdivision data provided average housing price information for all of the affected communities.

Total property value increases resulting from the Regulations are estimated to be $14.8 billion nationally (PV-2011).

Net benefits

The results of the quantified analysis are presented in Table 3 below. It illustrates the benefits and costs of the Regulations by jurisdiction, along with the net benefits. All figures are in thousands of 2011 dollars, discounted at 8%.

Table 3 — Present value net benefits of Regulations

Jurisdiction

Benefits

WTP PV (000s)

Property Value PV (000s)

Alberta

$17,200

$52,565

British Columbia

$460,259

$5,722,486

Manitoba

$134,174

$306,661

New Brunswick

$30,035

$59,567

Newfoundland and Labrador

$27,211

$415,306

Nova Scotia

$44,998

$415,419

Ontario

$131,795

$229,150

PEI

$4,972

$16,695

Quebec

$737,699

$7,355,262

Saskatchewan

$39,845

$161,329

Yukon

$459

$4,112

Federal

$50,095

$61,980

TOTAL

$1,678,742

$14,800,531



Jurisdiction

Costs

Net Benefit PV (000s)

Capital Costs PV (000s)

O&M Costs PV (000s)

Other Non-Capital Costs PV (000s)

Cost to Governments PV (000s)

Alberta

$91,223

$28,408

$62,061

To be determined

-$111,927

British Columbia

$255,082

$86,066

$54,245

$5,787,352

Manitoba

$350,032

$130,688

$37,138

-$77,024

New Brunswick

$80,655

$24,009

$48,964

-$64,027

Newfoundland and Labrador

$219,506

$125,962

$38,561

$58,488

Nova Scotia

$216,291

$126,006

$71,624

$46,497

Ontario

$95,503

$57,389

$107,872

$100,181

PEI

$6,894

$3,534

$10,819

$420

Quebec

$1,553,084

$1,117,773

$158,648

$5,263,456

Saskatchewan

$23,413

$12,314

$58,269

$107,179

Yukon

$11,177

$6,329

$2,101

-$15,035

Federal

$55,497

$16,984

$97,337

-$57,744

TOTAL

$2,958,357

$1,735,462

$747,639

$33,006

$11,004,809

* Values in 000s discounted to 2011 dollars at 8%.

The overall result is a 3:1 benefit to cost ratio. As evidenced by the total values in the above table, the majority of the benefits accrue from the property value assessment, while the majority of the costs are derived from the capital costs of the upgraded wastewater systems and the associated O&M costs. Note that not all of the quantified net benefits are positive in each jurisdiction. These impacts are discussed later in the “Distributional impacts” section.

Sensitivity analysis

Given the long timeframe of the analysis and the uncertainty around a number of the key parameters of the CBA model, sensitivity analysis is an important part of the overall assessment of the Regulations.

Monte Carlo analysis was the main tool used to assess sensitivity. Monte Carlo analysis uses computer-based simulation to perform repeated random sampling of key variables that are identified as being subject to uncertainty. This process generates expected values and statistical probabilities. Thus, one can see the likelihood of the outcome occurring when all variables of interest are allowed to vary simultaneously. Using this approach, it is estimated that the Regulations are expected to result in a net benefit to Canadians of $11 billion, with a 90% probability that the net benefit would be between -$0.2 billion and $24.4 billion. There would only be a 6% chance that the Regulations would not result in a positive net benefit under this analysis.

For the various jurisdictions, the results generally confirm the main findings as well. Those showing net benefits have high probabilities of achieving them in the results, while those with net costs have high probabilities of achieving those. Only the PEI results have a significant probability of having a different overall result (e.g. there is a 49% chance of a net cost versus a 51% chance of a net benefit for PEI).

However, it is important to keep in mind that these sensitivity results only apply to what was included in the quantitative analysis. As discussed, only a subset of the likely benefits could be quantified. Many, such as impacts on shellfish harvesting, tourism, human health, or locally sensitive environments, are not accounted for or only partially accounted for in the analysis. If such benefits could be fully incorporated into the above analysis, jurisdictions currently showing a net cost would have a considerably greater chance of achieving net benefits as a result of the Regulations.

To address the particular concern that costs could turn out to be higher than estimated, an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted. In this analysis, costs were increased by 20% over and above the adjusted 2006 estimates provided by the EFTG. This change did not alter the overall result. Benefits still considerably outweighed the costs, with the overall benefit-to-cost ratio reduced only to 2.7 to 1. The jurisdictional results were also consistent, although the magnitudes were different, with net benefits reduced and net costs increased.

Sensitivity analysis was also performed on the discount rate using 7%, 3% and undiscounted. The benefit-cost ratio increased when a lower discount rate was used.

The sensitivity analysis carried out on the analysis of the Regulations provides additional confidence that the overall conclusions from the analysis are sound, even though the specific magnitudes of the results are subject to uncertainty.

Distributional impacts

Given the varying levels of treatment and number of wastewater systems needing upgrades across the country, as well as the large costs involved, the Regulations are likely to have some significant distributional impacts. The main impacts are anticipated to be across regions and communities, while individual households and business would also likely be indirectly impacted.

Regional impacts

In terms of regional impacts, Table 3 reveals that the impacts of the Regulations are not expected to be the same across the country. In general, the majority of the benefits and costs are expected in jurisdictions with the highest percentage of the population on sewer systems with less than secondary treatment. As is illustrated in Figure 1, these are the coastal regions and Quebec. This is generally reflected in Table 3, where relatively higher costs and benefits are evident in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Quebec. (see footnote 24)

Some jurisdictions have negative net benefits in Table 3. When considering these results, it is important to consider that not all of the benefits of the Regulations could be quantified. Thus, these results likely do not truly reflect the overall impact in these areas. For instance, water availability and watershed sensitivities in the Prairie Provinces would likely add to the net benefits in those areas, while fisheries and shellfish impacts would increase net benefits in the coastal regions, in particular the Atlantic Provinces. Tourism impacts are likely to be felt across the country. Therefore, while important, the net benefits presented in Table 3 do not provide a complete picture of the likely impacts.

Community impacts

The Regulations are expected to be affordable for communities. In its work assessing the affordability of the CCME Strategy, the EFTG identified a number of funding mechanisms available to communities, such as full cost recovery, government service partnerships, strategic budget allocations, debt financing (bonds, loans, revolving loan funds, securitization funds), public-private partnerships, etc. Between 2006 and 2010, the Government of Canada committed $2.6 billion to municipal wastewater infrastructure projects through a number of programs.

Wastewater treatment infrastructure is an eligible category under the Provincial-Territorial Base Fund, the Green Infrastructure Fund, the Gas Tax Fund as well as the Building Canada Fund. Under the Gas Tax Fund, which is permanent at $2 billion per year, municipalities can choose to spend 100% of this funding to upgrade their wastewater infrastructure. Since 2008, wastewater infrastructure projects funded under the Major Infrastructure Component of the Building Canada Fund and the Green Infrastructure Fund have been required to meet the standards of the Regulations.

Household and business impacts

Households and businesses in communities requiring significant capital upgrades to meet the requirements in the Regulations are likely to be indirectly impacted through increased user fees or utility rates levied to pay for the upgrades. It is not practical with the information available at the federal level to accurately assess these impacts, as each community has different financial circumstances (e.g. tax base, reserves, and utility rates). However, as wastewater infrastructure is funded from a variety of sources, the cost burden is not expected to fall disproportionately on any one rate payer.

Competitiveness impacts

Potential competitiveness impacts are an important consideration of any regulatory proposal. In the case of the Regulations, no significant adverse competitiveness impacts are expected. The cost burden of the Regulations is not expected to fall disproportionately on any one rate payer, including businesses.

There will likely be positive impacts on Canada’s competitiveness in the areas of fisheries resources and tourism, in particular. For example, higher wastewater effluent quality could help reduce contaminant-related shellfish harvest closures in that $1.5-billion industry, and remove barriers to the export of seafood products (e.g. mussel exports from Eastern Canada). Tourism could also be impacted, as improved wastewater quality would likely help reduce the number of beach closures and increase access to water-based recreation.

Summary

The costs and benefits of the Regulations are summarized in Table 4 below, along with other qualitative and non-monetized impacts. The time periods reflect the beginning and end of the analysis period (2012–2065), with the start of each risk-based compliance period in between. The total net present value over the period of analysis is also provided, as are average annual figures. All figures are expressed in millions of 2011 dollars.

Table 4 — Cost-benefit summary statement

Incremental costs and benefits

2012 Base Year

2021

2031

2041

2065

Total NPV 2012-2065

Average Annual

(millions of 2011 dollars)

A. Quantified costs

Cost to wastewater system owners and operators

Capital costs (see footnote 25)

0

3,902

3,700

325

0

2,958

240

Operation and maintenance costs

0

247

411

421

10

1,735

141

Non-capital costs

13

11

11

11

3

748

61

Subtotal

13

4,160

4,123

754

13

5,441

442

Cost to governments

Enforcement

0.41

1.67

1.67

1.67

0.50

9.1

0.74

Compliance promotion

1.22

0.16

0.09

0

0

5.3

0.46

Authorization Officers

2.40

1.14

1.14

1.14

0

18.2

1.59

Electronic reporting system

0.25

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.5

0.04

Subtotal

4.28

3.00

2.93

2.84

0.52

33.0

2.83

Total costs

17

4,163

4,126

760

13

5,474

445

B. Monetized benefits

Willingness to pay

0

176

399

524

132

1,679

136

Property value increase

0

9,930

5,825

4,311

260

14,801

1,203

Total monetized benefits

0

10,106

6,223

4,834

391

16,480

1,339

C. Net benefit

-17

5,943

2,098

4,074

378

11,006

894

D. Qualitative and non-monetized impacts

Owners and operators of wastewater systems

  • There could be additional costs related to wastewater collection systems (pipe or truck), if those are deemed necessary, for example to connect more than one community to a wastewater treatment system. However, in such a case, there could also be costs savings associated with single wastewater systems serving more than one community.
  • Cleaner source water may reduce the cost to municipalities (i.e. the majority of owner/operators of wastewater treatment systems) for treating drinking water.

Governments

  • The provincial and territorial administrative costs will be determined through the negotiation of bilateral administrative agreements.
  • The common electronic reporting system to be developed by the federal government for the management of information collected through the Regulations should improve overall efficiency as well as communication between the various jurisdictions.
  • Regulatees may also face lower administrative costs (in terms of both time and money) due to the availability of a common electronic reporting system.

Environment

  • Non-monetized environmental benefits (in the form of reduced damages) are expected to result from lower pollutant loadings. These would total 139 358 metric tonnes of CBOD matter, suspended solids, total phosphorous and total ammonia. Other pollutants would also be reduced, such as total residual chlorine, but insufficient information is available to estimate the potential reductions. Healthier aquatic ecosystems are another significant unquantified benefit of these Regulations.

Health

  • Risks to human health from the release of untreated or inadequately treated wastewater effluent will be reduced. Cleaner source water will reduce the chance of wastewater contaminating fish and shellfish or drinking water sources. Risks from exposure to pollutants during recreational activities in surface water would also likely be smaller.

Income, GDP and employment

  • Spending on the required upgrades to comply with the Regulations is expected to lead to economic spin-off or “ripple” effects as the spending flows through the economy. An estimated $2.3 billion in labour income is expected during the construction phases, and as a result Canada’s GDP would increase in the order of $5.4 billion. Over 48 000 direct and indirect jobs are also expected to result from these direct and indirect effects.

Regions

  • The impacts of the Regulations will not be the same across the country. In general, the majority of the benefits and costs are expected in jurisdictions with the highest percentage of the population on sewer systems with less than secondary treatment.

Communities

  • Overall, the Regulations are expected to be affordable for communities.

Households and businesses

  • Households and businesses in communities requiring significant capital upgrades to meet the requirements in the Regulations are likely to be indirectly impacted through increased user fees or utility rates levied to pay for the upgrades. However, as wastewater infrastructure is funded from a variety of sources, the cost burden is not expected to fall disproportionately on any one rate payer.

As can be seen from the above summary, the benefits of the Regulations significantly outweigh the costs on a national basis over every time period considered (with the exception of the base year) and whether the dollars are discounted or not. Looking at the costs in the years 2021, 2031, and 2041, it is clear that almost 50% of the costs would be incurred in the first 10 years of the Regulations, with the vast majority being the capital costs of the upgraded wastewater systems. In terms of annualized figures, costs total about $445 million per year, while benefits are approximately $1.3 billion per year, which is consistent with the 3:1 benefits-to-cost ratio presented above. The table also presents a number of important qualitative and distributional impacts that would likely result.

Rationale

The Regulations will reduce the threats to fisheries resources, ecosystem health and human health posed by wastewater effluent. The levels of harmful substances being deposited to surface water from wastewater systems in Canada will be reduced as system owners and operators respond to the national effluent quality standards. These standards represent a secondary level of wastewater treatment, or equivalent, which removes over 95% of the total mass of conventional pollutants in wastewater (i.e. CBOD matter, suspended solids and nutrients). Significant amounts of non-conventional pollutants and bacteria that may be present are also removed through such treatment.

The Regulations are also the federal government’s principal instrument for implementing the CCME Strategy. As part of the CCME Strategy, the federal government committed to developing regulations, under the authority of the Fisheries Act, that would include the agreed upon national effluent quality standards. Additionally, jurisdictions agreed that the regulations would be administered through bilateral administrative agreements between the federal government and the provinces, and the Yukon. These agreements would clarify roles and responsibilities of jurisdictions on elements such as regulatory reporting to the authorization officer, data exchange, compliance promotion, and enforcement activities. The administration of the Regulations through bilateral administrative agreements sets a major precedent in the area of cooperative wastewater management in Canada.

In terms of the benefits of the Regulations, a cost-benefit analysis using conservative assumptions and only partial quantification of benefits reveals significant net benefits would be realized nationally. While the likely costs of the Regulations are significant, in the order of $5.5 billion discounted to 2011 dollars, the overall quantified benefits are almost three times this amount, totalling $16.5 billion.

The results of the cost-benefit analysis on a regional and jurisdictional basis vary considerably. This is to be expected given the number of wastewater systems to be upgraded and their differing levels of treatment across the country. Regions with a high proportion of their population currently not receiving secondary treatment (coastal regions and Quebec) are expected to incur the largest costs but also generally receive relatively larger benefits. This is not always the case, as some jurisdictions do not generate net benefits under the analysis. This may be due in large part to the limits of the analysis. For instance, many important benefits could not be quantified or were only partially quantified. These include fisheries resources, ecosystem and human health and tourism benefits. On the other hand, the costs are fairly comprehensive. In addition, high costs were identified for small and very small communities. These communities could face challenges funding the identified upgrades on their own.

Despite some of the regional results, the Regulations should be affordable. This conclusion is supported by the work of the EFTG in its examination of the overall CCME Strategy, whereby numerous funding options were identified. The EFTG concluded that the CCME Strategy, which includes the national effluent quality standards in the Regulations, would be affordable if governments made wastewater infrastructure funding a priority. With respect to the federal government, a number of infrastructure programs already have wastewater as an eligible project category, with several identifying wastewater infrastructure as a national priority.

Overall, the results of the analysis demonstrate clear benefits to Canadians from bringing all wastewater systems in the country up to a secondary level of treatment or equivalent. This brings Canada in line with standards already in place in the United States and Europe, and it puts Canadian wastewater systems in a better position to deal with emerging threats to fisheries resources, ecosystem health and human health in the future.

Consultation

Environment Canada has been consulting on the management of wastewater for many years. Environment Canada held 26 one-day consultation sessions across the country between November 2007 and January 2008. The objective of these sessions was to provide stakeholders and interested parties with detailed information and solicit input on the Proposed Regulatory Framework for Wastewater and the draft CCME Strategy. These consultation sessions involved more than 500 participants from Aboriginal communities and organizations, municipalities and associated organizations, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), and federal departments and agencies.

The comments received at the various consultation sessions and through written submissions covered a broad range of issues and perspectives. Feedback revealed a consensus that there is a need to improve wastewater management in Canada and that all jurisdictions needed to work together.

The proposed Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, on March 20, 2010, for a 60-day public comment period. A total of 189 submissions were received and taken into consideration. Parties who submitted comments include each provincial and territorial government, municipalities and their organizations, Aboriginal communities and their organizations, federal departments, owners of private wastewater systems, consultants, environmental non-governmental organizations and the general public.

Comments received touch on many elements of the proposed Regulations, as well as on the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. Most submissions were supportive of the Regulations and the regulatory intervention of baseline secondary wastewater treatment standards, and acknowledged that there is a need to improve wastewater management in Canada. The submissions ranged from technical elements of the proposed Regulations, including technical alignment of the proposed Regulations to the CCME Strategy, to concerns about costs and infrastructure funding. About 50 submissions from municipal governments advocated for the development of a federal/provincial/municipal cost-sharing plan to support the implementation of the proposed Regulations. Environmental non-governmental organizations were pleased that the federal government proposed regulations that included national standards for wastewater treatment in Canada, and for wastewater monitoring and reporting. They were concerned that the proposed Regulations included long timelines to achieve compliance with the national standards and lacked clear standards for reductions of combined sewer overflows. A summary of the comments and how they are addressed in the final Regulations is presented below.

Since summer 2010, Environment Canada has extensively engaged targeted stakeholders and interested parties on revisions to the proposed Regulations. This included provinces and territories through the CCME, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association and federal departments. The Assembly of First Nations was also directly engaged.

Timelines

During the comment period following the publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, several comments indicated that the proposed Regulations did not provide sufficient preparation time to allow the owners and operators of wastewater systems to meet the requirements of the Regulations.

  • As a result, the coming into force sequence of the Regulations has been adjusted. The coming into force of the national effluent quality standards, the start of the monitoring and reporting and the deadline for the submission of transitional authorizations have been delayed by 12 months. Also, the deadline for the submission of the identification report has been delayed by 10 months.
  • The deadline for wastewater systems with an average daily design rate of flow of less than 5 000 m3 to meet the total residual chlorine standard has been delayed by six years.

During consultation undertaken prior to the publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, several participants and submissions indicated that the risk-based implementation timelines of the end of 2029 for medium risk wastewater systems and the end of 2039 for low risk wastewater systems were too long. In particular, participants from federal departments and agencies were of the view that the proposed timelines of 20 to 30 years would be too long to get “buy-in” from their management to plan for any capital investment.

During the comment period following the publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, a few stakeholders indicated that the risk-based implementation timelines for high, medium and low risk systems should be aligned with the CCME Strategy. ENGOs indicated that timelines of transitional authorizations should be shortened in light of a 3:1 benefit-cost ratio.

  • The risk-based implementation timelines have been extended by one year. Nevertheless, regardless of the maximum timelines allowed, owners and operators of wastewater systems are encouraged to achieve compliance with the mandatory effluent quality standards as early as possible, especially as it relates to normal infrastructure renewal milestones.

Application

During the comment period following the publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, many requests for clarification of the application of the proposed Regulations were made. Clarity was sought as to whether the Regulations would apply to discharges to land and to discharges from stormwater facilities, livestock farm operations, industrial facilities, floating lodges and offshore oil and gas platforms. Also, several stakeholders and interested parties raised concerns about affordability of meeting the requirements of the Regulations for small facilities.

  • The definition of wastewater system was adjusted to clarify that the Regulations only apply to wastewater systems located on land, as was intended in the Proposed Regulatory Framework for Wastewater.
  • The Regulations are made under the Fisheries Act and, therefore, they apply to discharges of effluent in water frequented by fish or in places where effluent may enter the water frequented by fish. The Regulations target the wastewater sector. To improve clarity of the application, the definitions of blackwater, greywater and wastewater have been modified.
  • The non-application for facilities located on the site of industrial, commercial or institutional facilities was modified to target only those facilities that treat wastewater that is comprised of 50% or more of blackwater and greywater.
  • The Regulations have been revised to exclude wastewater systems already subject to the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.
  • The Regulations have been revised such that the threshold of applicability was increased from 10 m3 to 100 m3 of influent per day. As a consequence, this change will help mitigate some of the affordability concerns for small facilities and businesses by reducing the required investment in capital upgrades and monitoring equipment, as well as reducing their administrative burden.

Limits for deleterious substances

During consultation undertaken prior to the publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, several stakeholders and interested parties suggested that it would be more appropriate to describe the deleterious substances in terms of loading rather than concentration.

  • Environment Canada had adopted and is keeping a concentration-based approach for the deleterious substances, as the proposed limits for CBOD matter and suspended solids are indicative of conventional secondary wastewater treatment.

Both in the consultation undertaken prior to and the comment period after the publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, many stakeholders and interested parties, including representatives from First Nations, indicated that there should be additional parameters defined as deleterious substances, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, fecal coliforms and substances of emerging concern.

  • As indicated in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, publication, Environment Canada considers that certain conventional pollutants, such as phosphorus, nitrogen and fecal coliforms are best managed site-specifically, beyond the reductions achieved through the Regulations. The CCME Strategy provides an agreed-to framework for jurisdictions to manage site-specific pollutants, either through concentration or loading based approaches.
  • Environment Canada is of the view that other substances may be best managed through source control. From a federal perspective, the Chemicals Management Plan is a key initiative to reduce contaminants directly at their source.

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, provincial governments, representatives from First Nations, municipalities, and federal departments stated that the proposed Regulations did not include any special consideration for lagoon-type treatment systems exceeding the suspended solids standard when the exceedance is caused by algae. Such special consideration was provided in the CCME Strategy because lagoon-type treatment systems may exceed this standard due to the natural proliferation of algae in the summer months.

  • The Regulations provide flexibility during the months in which algae is the most prolific. The Regulations currently indicate that suspended solids results exceeding 25 mg/L during the months of July, August, September or October do not need to be included in the calculation of the compliance average. Although the suspended solids may exceed the prescribed average during those months, the average CBOD must be maintained.

Un-ionized ammonia

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, stakeholders and interested parties were concerned that un-ionized ammonia was listed as a deleterious substance in the proposed Regulations and about the associated monitoring requirements.

  • As indicated in Environment Canada’s Proposed Regulatory Framework for Wastewater, un-ionized ammonia must be prescribed as a deleterious substance in order to achieve the outcome in the CCME Strategy.
  • The monitoring of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent for all wastewater systems has been reduced from what was proposed and is now limited to January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014. This provides owners and operators with the required information to apply for either a transitional authorization or a temporary authorization to deposit un-ionized ammonia, if applicable. After that date, only holders of temporary authorizations to deposit un-ionized ammonia are required to perform regular monitoring of un-ionized ammonia in both the effluent and the receiving environment.

During the sameperiod, ENGOs expressed concern that the proposed approach for un-ionized ammonia did not adequately address environmental risks.

  • The intent of the Regulations is to set national effluent quality standards that are representative of secondary treatment, or equivalent. Given that the Procedure for pH Stabilization during the Testing of Acute Lethality of Wastewater Effluent to Rainbow Trout (EPS 1/RM/50) that corrects for pH drift during acute lethality testing may be used, Environment Canada is of the view that very few wastewater systems at a secondary level of treatment will produce an effluent that is acutely lethal because of un-ionized ammonia.
  • The temporary authorization to deposit un-ionized ammonia remains renewable every three years.

At the same time, many technical comments were also made on the temporary authorization to deposit un-ionized ammonia.

  • Environment Canada recognizes that an effluent can be acutely lethal because of un-ionized ammonia at a concentration below 1.25 mg/L. The Regulations have been modified to allow an owner or operator of a wastewater system depositing such an effluent to be eligible for the temporary authorization, as long as other conditions are met.
  • Environment Canada has provided more flexibility on the method to be used to determine the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the 100 m zone in the receiving environment by allowing estimation techniques. Guidance material will provide further details.
  • Environment Canada has already published guidance on how to determine that an effluent is acutely lethal because of un-ionized ammonia. The Supplementary Background and Guidance for Investigating Acute Lethality of Wastewater Effluent to Rainbow Trout is available at www.ec.gc. ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=ADEF3410-CB9B4A2F-97CD-2BD3B2757E6C.
  • The Regulations have also been modified to allow this temporary authorization to be applied for at any time under specified conditions and to reduce the renewal burden.

Seasonal discharges

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, stakeholders and interested parties of all kinds indicated that the proposed Regulations did not include specific requirements for wastewater systems that discharge effluent only few times a year.

  • In order to further align with the CCME Strategy, categories of wastewater systems have been created, namely the intermittent and continuous wastewater systems. Intermittent wastewater systems have a hydraulic retention time of 90 days or more and deposit effluent during no more than four periods during a year with each period being separated by at least seven days. Continuous wastewater systems are any other systems.
  • For intermittent wastewater systems, monitoring of CBOD and the concentration of suspended solids are required once per discharge period, unless the period exceeds 30 days, and the samples collected may be either grab or composite samples.
  • The averaging period for intermittent wastewater systems that deposit an annual average daily volume of effluent of 17 500 m3 or less has been changed from each quarter to annual. Certain continuous wastewater systems are also subject to an annual average.
  • The Regulations no longer require owners or operators of intermittent wastewater systems to install flow monitoring equipment, but allow these owners or operators to estimate the daily volume of effluent deposited using generally accepted engineering practices.

Monitoring requirements

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, a few municipalities indicated that the measurement of the volume of influent should be allowed to serve as a measure for the volume of effluent deposited. Additionally, they indicated that requiring the installation of volume monitoring equipment at the outfall of wastewater systems that currently monitor the volume of influent represents an unnecessary cost.

  • Environment Canada has modified the Regulations to allow the measurement of either the influent or the effluent.

During both the pre-Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, consultation and the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, municipalities indicated that the monitoring requirements represent a burden for owners and operators of wastewater systems and many interested parties indicated that the sampling frequency was not aligned with the CCME Strategy. In response to the pre-Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comments, Environment Canada decreased the sampling frequency for determination of CBOD and suspended solids concentration for very large wastewater systems. Concern was also expressed by some representatives for municipalities as well as participants from Aboriginal communities and organizations that small facilities may experience difficulty meeting the proposed monitoring requirements because of resource constraints. The need to perform all tests in an accredited laboratory has also been identified as an expensive measure that would provide little environmental benefit.

  • In general, the monitoring requirements of the Regulations are aligned with those of the CCME Strategy. To reduce the monitoring burden, the Regulations no longer require acute lethality testing prior to the coming into force of the effluent quality standards on January 1, 2015, and over the duration of the transitional authorization for wastewater systems subject to such an authorization.
  • Environment Canada believes that the use of accredited laboratories is necessary to ensure consistent data quality across Canada. The Regulations have been clarified to ensure that only samples taken for the purpose of complying with the Regulations need to be analyzed in an accredited laboratory.
  • As mentioned previously, the Regulations have been revised for intermittent dischargers, typically smaller wastewater systems, including with respect to the sampling frequency. The sampling frequency has also been reduced from monthly to quarterly for continuous wastewater systems with a hydraulic retention time of five days or more that deposit an annual average daily volume of less than or equal to 2 500 m3. In both cases, either a grab or composite sample may be collected for determining the CBOD and suspended solids concentration.

Acute toxicity requirements

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, clarification was requested on the coming into force of the provision requiring the deposit of an effluent that is not acutely lethal as well as on threshold to be considered acutely lethal.

  • To be authorized to deposit the prescribed deleterious substances, the effluent must meet the national effluent quality standards and be not acutely lethal. These requirements come into force on January 1, 2015, unless operating under a transitional or temporary authorization.
  • Acutely lethal is defined in section 1 of the Regulations as effluent that, at 100% concentration, kills, during a 96-hour period, more than 50% of the rainbow trout when tested conducted using the Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Rainbow Trout (EPS 1/RM/13) or that method with the Procedure for pH Stabilization during the Testing of Acute Lethality of Wastewater Effluent to Rainbow Trout (EPS 1/RM/50).

During the same period, provincial governments indicated that requirements related to acute toxicity testing in the proposed Regulations deviated from those of the CCME Strategy. They pointed out that there was no reduction in the frequency of acute toxicity testing after one year of consecutive samples being non-acutely lethal and that there were no requirements to perform the daphnia acute toxicity test and chronic toxicity tests.

  • The Regulations have been revised to allow a reduction on sampling frequency for acute toxicity after 12 consecutive months of samples of effluent being non-acutely lethal. The frequency has been reduced from quarterly to yearly for wastewater systems with an annual average daily volume between 2 500 m3 and 50 000 m3 and from monthly to quarterly for those with an annual average daily volume over 50 000 m3.
  • Environment Canada is of the view that daphnia acute toxicity and chronic toxicity tests should not be a baseline requirement for all wastewater systems in Canada. As indicated in the CCME Strategy, provincial governments can address site-specific requirements to ensure adequate protection of sensitive receiving environment.

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, the absence of a toxicity reduction and evaluation process after the failure of an acute toxicity test was identified by provincial governments and municipalities as a deviation from the CCME Strategy.

  • Environment Canada did not include a toxicity reduction and evaluation process in the proposed Regulations or final Regulations. Environment Canada continues to be of the view that this process should be tailored to each site to allow flexibility in identifying the corrective measures.

Clarification was requested, during the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, as to when the Procedure for pH Stabilization EPS 1/RM/50 can be used.

  • Section 15 of the Regulations has been modified to allow the Procedure for pH Stabilization during the Testing of Acute Lethality of Wastewater Effluent to Rainbow Trout (EPS 1/ RM/50) to be used at any time at the discretion of the owner or operator.

Transitional authorizations

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, stakeholders and interested parties informed Environment Canada that the effluent from wastewater systems could meet the national standard for CBOD or the concentration of suspended solids on an annual basis, while exceeding on a monthly or quarterly basis for several periods of the year. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator would not be able to apply for and obtain a transitional authorization, even though upgrades to the wastewater systems may be required.

  • Based on this comment, Environment Canada has changed the basis on which a transitional authorization may be obtained. Effluent from wastewater systems must exceed, during a period of 12 consecutive months during the 15 months immediately before the application is made, an average CBOD or a suspended solids average concentration of 25 mg/L in a 12-month period, a three-month period or three periods of a month. The period of time on which these averages are based depends on the type and size of the wastewater system.

At the same time, several municipal stakeholders indicated that it was not realistic to expect that previous effluent quality be maintained over a 10-, 20- or 30-year timeframe to achieve compliance. They indicated that investment should target the upgrades required to reach secondary treatment, or equivalent, and a cap should not be set on discharge levels when under a transitional authorization.

  • Environment Canada agrees that investment should be targeted at upgrading the wastewater system. However, under the Fisheries Act, quantities or concentrations of deleterious substance must be specified in order to authorize their deposit. To address this, the Regulations have been modified to permit an increase of 25% of the average CBOD, average concentration of suspended solids and maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia over the duration of the transitional authorization. Where a 25% increase of the averages or maximum does not exceed the national effluent quality standards, these standards apply. In addition, there is no requirement pertaining to the acute lethality of the effluent over the duration of the transitional authorization.

Combined sewer overflows

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, ENGOs requested significant reductions in combined sewer overflows and the ultimate elimination of them. They suggested that this should be accomplished through the creation of enforceable, aggressive targets set out under the Regulations.

  • The objective of the Regulations is to establish national baseline effluent quality standards representative of secondary treatment or equivalent.
  • The Regulations have been modified to require owners and operators of combined sewers to record information on the quantity and frequency of effluent discharged from them and to annually report that information.

In the 60-day comment period, provincial governments and municipalities indicated concern that paragraph 22(t) of the proposed Regulations required a plan to eliminate overflows from all combined sewers.

  • Paragraph 22(t) of the proposed Regulations, now paragraph 25(s) in the Regulations, has been revised to require a plan that describes the modifications to be made to the wastewater to reduce, after the expiry of the transitional authorization, the quantity of deleterious substances deposited via overflow points. This plan would be submitted only by owners and operators of medium or high risk of wastewater systems that would like to extend the duration of the transitional authorization until the end of 2040 to deal with the combined sewer overflow issue at the same time.

Environmental effects monitoring

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, stakeholders, mainly provincial governments, industry associations and municipalities, stated that having environmental effects monitoring (EEM) requirements in the proposed Regulations was premature and ahead of the timing in the CCME Strategy. Secondly, they questioned the ability of the criterion to trigger wastewater systems into EEM studies, including the lack of guidance on the use of the criterion, its ability to be applied consistently across Canada and its potential to trigger more than the 200 systems originally envisaged. Thirdly, concerns were raised regarding the associated cost and capacity issues around the implementation of the proposed EEM program, especially for small municipalities with limited financial resources and access to internal expertise.

  • Given the extent of the comments, the EEM requirements have been removed from the Regulations with the intent to include them at a later date as a regulatory amendment in consultation with stakeholders and interested parties.

Multiple discharge points of untreated wastewater

In the 60-day comment period, two municipalities with many outfalls discharging untreated effluent mentioned that the cost of constructing both a collection system and multiple wastewater treatment facilities within 10 years was unrealistic. In addition, they failed to see the value in monitoring untreated wastewater when resources should be focussed on the construction of needed infrastructure.

  • Environment Canada recognizes the burden associated with these particular situations and has developed the “consolidated wastewater system” scheme to reduce the administrative burden for owners of 10 or more wastewater systems. An owner who intends to consolidate many outfalls into one or more wastewater systems will be able to monitor the effluent from only one of those outfalls, based on criteria set out in the Regulations, and submit one transitional authorization application rather than submitting one application for each outfall.

Deposit out of the normal course of events

Most stakeholders and interested parties requested, during the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, clarification on proposed requirements related to deposits out of the normal course of events. Many municipalities viewed the requirement to prepare emergency response plans as duplicating pre-existing requirements. Concerns were also expressed with respect to the requirements for immediate notification and written reporting, especially as they related to combined sewer overflows.

  • Environment Canada has not included requirements related to deposits out of the normal course of events in the Regulations. The duty to report (notify) a deposit out of the normal course of events is set out in subsection 38(4) of the Fisheries Act. An unauthorized deposit of a deleterious substance that occurs or that is serious and in imminent danger of occurring and results or may reasonably be expected to result in any damage or danger to fish, fish habitat, or the use by people of fish is required to be notified to the person prescribed in the Deposit Out of the Normal Course of Events Notification Regulations (Canada Gazette, Part Ⅱ, March 25, 2011).

Cost-benefit analysis

During the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, comment period, stakeholders, specifically from Nova Scotia, were concerned about the calculation of willingness-to-pay (WTP) for improved water quality values for that province.

  • The calculation of WTP was based on the economic study commissioned by the CCME. While the methodology was sound, one of the equations used to calculate the WTP for Nova Scotia produced an unusually high value. In response to this issue, Environment Canada reviewed the methodology of the original study and recalculated the WTP equations for all provinces using Environment Canada’s 2011 Municipal Water Use Report.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

As part of the CCME Strategy, jurisdictions agreed that the Regulations would be implemented through bilateral administrative agreements between the federal government and the provinces and Yukon. These agreements will clarify roles and responsibilities of jurisdictions on elements such as regulatory reporting to the authorization officer, data exchange, compliance promotion, and enforcement activities. The agreements have yet to be negotiated; thus, the following subsections on administration, enforcement and service standards focus on those systems under federal government operation or on federal or Aboriginal land which will be delivered by Environment Canada.

Implementation

To meet the objectives of the Regulations, compliance promotion activities targeting owners and operators of wastewater systems will be delivered in order to make them aware of the regulatory requirements and to encourage them to achieve a high level of overall compliance as early as possible during the regulatory implementation process.

Compliance promotion activities, such as developing and distributing promotional materials, advertising in trade and association magazines, attending trade association conferences, presenting at workshops/information sessions and meeting with regulatees, will be undertaken.

Enforcement

Enforcement officers, when verifying compliance with the Regulations, apply the “Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act.” The Policy sets out the range of possible responses to violations, including warnings, directions,environmental protection compliance orders, ticketing, ministerial orders, injunctions, prosecution, and environmental protection alternative measures. In addition, the Policy explains when Environment Canada will resort to civil suits by the Crown for costs recovery.

When, following an inspection or an investigation, an enforcement officer discovers an alleged violation, the officer will choose the appropriate enforcement action based on the following factors:

  • Nature of the alleged violation: This includes consideration of the damage, the intent of the alleged violator, whether it is a repeat violation, and whether an attempt has been made to conceal information or otherwise subvert the objectives and requirements of the Fisheries Act.
  • 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 Fisheries Act, willingness to cooperate with enforcement officers, and evidence of corrective action already taken.
  • Consistency: Enforcement officers will consider how similar situations have been handled in determining the measures to be taken to enforce the Fisheries Act.

Service standards

Service standards are proposed for the issuance of transitional and temporary authorizations.

Under the Regulations, an owner or operator of an eligible wastewater system is required to submit an application for a transitional authorization by June 30, 2014. The application for the authorization would be reviewed by the authorization officer and, if accepted, the authorization will be issued to align with the coming into force of the regulatory provisions that set limits for deleterious substances deposited in effluent (i.e. January 1, 2015).

An application for a temporary authorization to deposit un-ionized ammonia must be made to the authorization officer within 30 days after the date when it is established that the effluent is acutely lethal because of the concentration of un-ionized ammonia. Extension requests must be made at least 90 days before the expiry of the temporary authorization. The original application or extension request will be reviewed by the authorization officer and, if accepted, the authorization or extension will be issued no later than 21 days from the date of receipt of the application.

An application for a temporary bypass authorization is required to be submitted at least 45 days before the day on which the bypass is scheduled to begin. The application for the bypass authorization will be reviewed by the authorization officer and, if accepted, the authorization will be issued no later than 21 days from the date of receipt of the application.

Performance measurement and evaluation

The performance of the Regulations will be measured and evaluated in terms of immediate, intermediate and final outcomes.

One of the intermediate outcomes of the Regulations is that the regulated community is in compliance with the regulatory requirements. This will be evaluated by determining the percentage of the regulated community reporting on time and the percentage of the regulated community that is in compliance with the limits for effluent quality, whether operating under a transitional authorization or subject to the national effluent quality standards.

Another intermediate outcome of the Regulations is that national effluent quality standards are achieved within prescribed timelines and are maintained. This intermediate outcome will be evaluated by determining the percentage of wastewater systems achieving the national effluent quality standards as a direct result of the Regulations.

The final outcome is that threats are reduced to fish, fish habitat and human health from fish consumption associated with the release of deleterious and harmful substances in wastewater effluent. The final outcome will be evaluated annually using the reduction in loadings of CBOD matter and suspended solids.

The Regulations require regulatees to submit reports through an electronic reporting system developed by Environment Canada. Reporting on the progress and performance of the Regulations will occur through departmental performance reports and the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. With respect to the assessment of the overall effectiveness of the administration and implementation of the Regulations, Environment Canada will work with the departmental head of evaluation to determine the scope of the evaluation, as well as the appropriate timing.

Contacts

James Arnott
Manager
Wastewater Section
Public and Resources Sectors Directorate
Environment Canada
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-994-4674
Fax: 819-994-0237
Email: James.Arnott@ec.gc.ca

Brenda Tang
Acting Director
Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division
Environment Canada
10 Wellington Street
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-997-5755
Fax: 819-953-3241
Email: Brenda.Tang@ec.gc.ca

Footnote a
S.C. 1991, c. 1, s. 12(2)

Footnote b
S.C. 1991, c. 1, s. 12(2)

Footnote c
R.S., c. F-14

Footnote 1
Surface water means any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

Footnote 2
Chambers et al. 1997. “The Impacts of Municipal Wastewater Effluents on Canadian Waters: A review.” Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. Volume 32, no. 4, p. 659-713.

Footnote 3
Protozoans are single-cell, microscopic organisms, some of which are parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, which can cause outbreaks of disease.

Footnote 4
EnvironmentCanada. 2001. “The state of municipal wastewater effluents in Canada.” Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Footnote 5
EnvironmentCanada estimate based on information from CCME’s Economics and Funding Task Group data on wastewater systems across Canada.

Footnote 6
As defined in the Regulations.

Footnote 7
The hydraulic retention time is the average period of time during which wastewater is retained for treatment within the wastewater system.

Footnote 8
Fisheries Act, R.S., c. F-14, s. 1

Footnote 9
Combined sewers collect both sanitary sewage and stormwater in the same pipe. Modern practice is to separate these two collection systems since the volume of wastewater can exceed the capacity of treatment systems during significant wet weather events, resulting in overflows.

Footnote 10
The term “municipal wastewater effluent” is often used in reference to effluent from Canadian wastewater (sewage) systems since the majority are owned and operated by municipalities. For the purpose of this document, the term “wastewater effluent” is used.

Footnote 11
Gagnon, M., V. Gaudreault, and D. Overton. 2008. “Age of Public Infrastructure: A Provincial Perspective.” Ottawa: Statistics Canada. 11-621-MIE2008067.

Footnote 12
Environment Canada. 2001. “The state of municipal wastewater effluents in Canada.” Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. p. 42.

Footnote 13
Environment Canada. 2011. “2011 Municipal Water Use Report.” Ottawa: Environment Canada.

Footnote 14
Note that there is insufficient information to accurately assess the current state of wastewater treatment in Canada’s northern regions.

Footnote 15
Based on data from Environment Canada’s 2011 Municipal Water Use Report.

Footnote 16
EnvironmentCanada. 2007. “Proposed Regulatory Framework for Wastewater.” www.ec.gc.ca/eu-ww/default.asp?lang=En&n=0108BE25-1.

Footnote 17
Sawyer, David; Chung, Laureen; and Dr. Steven Renzetti. 2006. “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Cleaner Source Water.” Marbek Resource Consultants.

Footnote 18
The EFTG was tasked with addressing issues related to the costs of the CCME Strategy and funding options.

Footnote 19
Government of Canada. 1993. Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents Priority Substances List Assessment Report. www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/PSAP/PSL1_chlorinated_WW_effluents.cfm.

Footnote 20
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1999. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Reactive chlorine.

Footnote 21
See “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Cleaner Source Water”, Marbek Resource Consultants, 2006, p. 27 for further details. www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/cba_source_water_1396.pdf. Available only in English.

Footnote 22
Ibid., p. 34.

Footnote 23
2006 Census property values were inflated to 2011 dollars using the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator.

Footnote 24
Note that Manitoba has self-identified relatively high capital costs associated with a large number of small communities and one very large system.

Footnote 25
* Note that for the purposes of this table, all of the capital costs were combined into 2021, 2031, and 2041 to illustrate the total capital costs per compliance period. In the actual analysis, these costs were spread out over the two years prior to the compliance period to allow for construction.