Vol. 135, No. 30 — July 28, 2001

Metal Mining Effluent Regulations

Statutory Authority

Fisheries Act

Sponsoring Department

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The objective of the proposed new Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) is to update and strengthen the current Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations (MMLER). The proposed new MMER will also repeal the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations (AATDR).

The current MMLER were made on February 24, 1977, under sections 33 and 34 of the Fisheries Act as it stood at that time. These Regulations were designed to limit the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish from new, expanded and reopened metal mines. The MMLER do not apply to mines that commenced operation prior to 1977 or to mines that use cyanide in the milling process. Authorized effluent concentration limits were set for arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, radium-226, total suspended solids (TSS) and zinc, and minimum levels were set for pH.

The proposed new MMER will apply to all metal mines, including pre-1977 mines. They further augment the requirements of the MMLER by: adding limits for cyanide to the original MMLER limits for arsenic, copper, lead, zinc, nickel and radium-226; including an upper limit on pH; lowering the limit for TSS; requiring Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM); and requiring the production of non-acutely lethal effluent.

Background

The proposed new MMER are the result of an extensive consultation process spanning approximately six years.

In June 1993, the Assessment of the Aquatic Effects of Mining in Canada (AQUAMIN) process was initiated in response to Environment Canada's commitment to update and strengthen the MMLER. This multi-stakeholder process involved representatives from federal departments, provincial ministries, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, and First Nations groups. The final AQUAMIN report of April 1996 advanced more than 50 recommendations in three key areas, those being: specific amendments to the MMLER; the design of a national EEM program; and information gaps and research needs.

In response to the recommendations of the AQUAMIN report, a multi-stakeholder advisory group and several expert working groups were established to provide ongoing advice on the development of the proposed new MMER and the associated EEM program. This phase of the consultation process took place from mid-1997 to mid-1999 and, similar to AQUAMIN, involved representatives from federal departments, provincial ministries, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, and First Nations groups.

The AATDR were made in April 1979 allowing the Kitsault Mine to deposit mine tailings into Alice Arm, a deep fjord in northwestern British Columbia. The AATDR are in effect a site-specific exemption to the MMLER, and the Kitsault Mine is the only mine in Canada that is so exempted. This mine has not operated since 1982.

In November 1992, Environment Canada commenced a review of its regulations, including the AATDR, as part of an overall federal government regulatory review process. The Environmental Protection Program Regulatory Review Discussion Document, issued in November 1993, recommended that the AATDR be repealed. In the November 1994 final report, it was again recommended that these regulations be repealed.

Industry Profile

The Canadian metal mining industry produces over $11 billion of metal production revenue (based on figures for 1997). Over 90 metal mines operate in Canada. The geographic distribution of these mines, and the number of mine types, value of production and number of employees are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Value of Metal Mine Production and Number of Employees¹

Value of Production and Number of Employees 1997
Type of Mine	Value of Production ($ Billions)	Number of Employees
Gold	2.5	9,621
Silver-Lead-Zinc	1.2	3,058
Uranium	0.6	1,024
Iron	1.6	4,839
Nickel-Copper-Zinc	5.1	13,478
Other metal mines	0.2	992
Total *	11.2	33,012
* due to rounding, total might not add up

¹ Statistics Canada, Metal Mines 1997 (SIC 061), catalogue no. 26-223-XIB, 1999, Ottawa, pages 8 and 9.

Table 2: Distribution of Canadian Metal Mines²

Province and Territory	Distribution of Operating Mines 1999
	Base Metals	Precious Metals	Uranium	Iron	Total
Yukon		1			1
B.C.	4	6			10
N.W.T., NV	2	2			4
Saskatchewan	1	2	3		6
Manitoba	6	2			8
Ontario	17	19			36
Quebec	8	13		2	23
New Brunswick	2				2
Newfoundland		1		2	3
Total	40	46	3	4	93

² Canadian Mines Handbook 1999-2000, Southam Mining Publications, Don Mills, Ontario, August 1999.

The Kitsault Mine

The Kitsault Mine was an open-pit molybdenum mine that operated from January 1968 to late 1972 and from April 1981 to November 1982. Mining ceased in 1982 due to poor market conditions and has not resumed.

In February 1997, the owner of the mine, Climax Canada Limited, filed a reclamation work plan with the government of British Columbia. In this plan, the company proposed to proceed with demolition and salvaging of the mine site infrastructure including the tailings line, tailings tunnel and tailings drop boxes, the freshwater supply line, the pit shop building, and the mill/ concentrator complex. This reclamation work has been completed and, as of September 1, 1999, all surface installations had been removed including the tailings pipeline.

Regulatory Requirements

The proposed new MMER will result in the following changes to current regulatory requirements under the MMLER:

— the proposed new Regulations will apply to all new and existing metal mines in Canada including gold mines that use cyanide in the milling process and mines that were in operation prior to the 1977 MMLER (the proposed MMER will apply to about 93 operating mines, while the MMLER applied to about 30 mines in 1998);

— limits will be prescribed for cyanide;

— the prescribed limit for total suspended solids (TSS) will be lowered from 25 mg/L to 15 mg/L for monthly mean concentrations;

— effluent pH will need to be maintained in the range of 6.0 to 9.5 as opposed to meeting currently prescribed minimum values;

— mines will be required to produce an effluent that is non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout when tested in accordance with a prescribed reference method;

— mines will be required to monitor the acute lethality of effluent to rainbow trout and Daphnia magna; and

— mines will be required to conduct an Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program in accordance with prescribed requirements.

Current MMLER and proposed MMER effluent requirements are compared in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of MMLER and Proposed MMER Requirements

Parameter	Current MMLER Requirements(1)
item	Monthly(3)	Composite(4)	Grab(5)
Arsenic (mg/L)	0.5	0.75	1.0
Copper (mg/L)	0.3	0.45	0.6
Cyanide (mg/L)	none	none	none
Lead (mg/L)	0.2	0.3	0.4
Nickel (mg/L)	0.5	0.75	1.0
Zinc (mg/L)	0.5	0.75	1.0
pH	>6.0	>5.5	>5.0
Radium-226 (Bq/L)	0.37	0.74	1.11
TSS (mg/L)	25	37.5	50
(% Non-acutely lethal effluent)(6)	No requirement

Parameter	Proposed MMER Requirements(2)
item	Monthly(3)	Composite(4)	Grab(5)
Arsenic (mg/L)	0.5	0.75	1.0
Copper (mg/L)	0.3	0.45	0.6
Cyanide (mg/L)	1.0	1.5	2.0
Lead (mg/L)	0.2	0.3	0.4
Nickel (mg/L)	0.5	0.75	1.0
Zinc (mg/L)	0.5	0.75	1.0
pH	In range of 6.0 to 9.5
Radium-226 (Bq/L)	0.37	0.74	1.11
TSS (mg/L)	15	22.5	30
(% Non-acutely lethal effluent)(6)	100%

(1) All MMLER concentrations are total values with the exception of radium-226, which is a dissolved value.

(2) All MMER concentrations are total values.

(3) Maximum authorized monthly arithmetic mean concentration.

(4) Maximum authorized concentration in a composite sample.

(5) Maximum authorized concentration in a grab sample.

(6) For the purposes of the MMER, non-acutely lethal means survival of at least 50% of rainbow trout subjected to 100% concentration effluent for a period of 96 hours.

The proposed new MMER limits are based on a comprehensive review and assessment of national and international mining ffluxent standards, pollution prevention practices and control technologies of relevance to the mining sector, and the current performance of the Canadian mining sector in terms of effluent quality. The new limits reflect the effluent quality that is being achieved by the best performing (upper 50th percentile) of Canadian metal mines and thus are based on the availability of demonstrated technology. The proposed MMER requirements take into account current provincial and territorial regulatory requirements and essentially mirror those in place under the Province of Ontario's Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) program.

Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM)

The metal mining EEM program builds on the experience of the EEM program developed and implemented under the 1992 Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.

The objective of the metal mining EEM program will be to evaluate the effects of mining effluent on the aquatic environment, specifically fish, fish habitat, and the use of fisheries resources. The program will help evaluate the effectiveness of current and future pollution prevention and control technologies, practices and programs within the mining sector and will evaluate the need for more enhanced protection of fish, fish habitat and fisheries on a site-specific basis. Each mine owner or operator will be required to develop, conduct and report the findings of a site-specific EEM program which monitors key components of the aquatic ecosystem. All mines will be required to:

— submit study designs detailing each field monitoring study;

— conduct a field monitoring program as described by the study design;

— submit interpretive reports after completion of each field study; and

— conduct ongoing effluent characterization, sub-lethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring.

The frequency and nature of EEM monitoring will vary at each site depending upon the results of previous monitoring studies. Where an effect on fish or benthic invertebrates is found, mines will be required to conduct focused monitoring of the effect. Where EEM studies indicate there are no effects, the mine will be required to conduct periodic monitoring, with a reduced frequency in comparison to focused monitoring.

The recommendations of the AQUAMIN report stressed the need for an effective EEM program for the Canadian mining industry. An effective EEM program will allow for continuous improvement in mining effluent treatment and will provide a scientifically defensible basis for establishing, where necessary, site-specific remediation requirements or more stringent site-specific measures to protect fish, fish habitat and fisheries.

Alternatives

Metal Mining Effluent Regulations

Status Quo

The status quo alternative was rejected since it has been recognized by governments, industry and other stakeholders that the current MMLER required updating and strengthening; the AQUAMIN recommendation that a revised regulation should apply to all Canadian metal mines is of particular relevance in this regard. The proposed MMER represent the outcome of comprehensive consultation processes spanning a period of approximately six years and reflect the environmental performance that is achievable with currently available pollution prevention and control technology.

Regulatory Option

A regulatory option under the Fisheries Act consisting of prescribed effluent criteria and a requirement for environmental effects monitoring was considered to be the most appropriate measure to achieve the objective of improved management of mining effluents. The proposed regulatory approach will help ensure there are national baseline minimum standards of environmental performance for all Canadian metal mines while providing a scientifically defensible basis for assessing the need for more stringent measures to protect fish, fish habitat and fisheries on a site-specific basis.

Tools such as economic instruments and voluntary approaches were not considered practical for the management of mine effluents, as the purpose of the new proposals is to provide protection for fish and fish habitat exposed to effluents from metal mines.

Repealing Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations (AATDR)

Status Quo

Maintaining the existing AATDR was not viewed as an acceptable option since this approach would provide an exemption to the proposed new MMER. The proposed MMER are to apply to all metal mines operating in Canada. Allowing for the continuation of the AATDR would undermine the intent of the proposed MMER and would be inconsistent with the recommendation of the federal government's 1994 Regulatory Review report.

Repeal the AATDR

Repealing the AATDR will help to ensure the consistent application of the proposed MMER to all Canadian metal mines and is in accordance with the recommendations of the 1994 Regulatory Review report. Since there is no longer a mining operation at the Kitsault mine site, repealing of the AATDR would have no measurable impact on the mining sector.

Benefits and Costs

Costs to Industry

The mining industry will incur additional costs to comply with the proposed new MMER due to:

— the broadened application of the new regulations, i.e., to gold mines that use cyanide in the milling process and mines in operation before 1977;

— upgrading of existing effluent treatment systems to enable all mines to achieve the new regulatory requirements for total suspended solids, cyanide, pH and the production of non-acutely lethal effluent;

— new requirements for monitoring of acute lethality; and

— the development and implementation of EEM programs.

Costs for Upgrading of Effluent Treatment Facilities

A study (see footnote 1) was conducted to estimate the costs that would be associated with the upgrading of effluent treatment facilities to meet the new requirements of the proposed MMER. This study involved a survey and analysis of mines outside of the Province of Ontario to determine if: (a) their existing operations would be compliant with the requirements of the proposed new MMER; and (b) what, if any, additional capital and operational expenditures would be required to become compliant. Ontario mines were excluded from this review since they already need to comply with regulatory requirements that are at least as stringent as those of the proposed new MMER.

A total of 67 operating mines were identified as being potentially impacted by the proposed new MMER. Information was available for 61 of these mines. Sources of information included direct contact with mine operators, Environment Canada MMLER compliance data, and published Quebec Directive 019 compliance data. For the six mines for which data could not be obtained, assumptions were made regarding the potential additional treatment requirements and costs.

The capital cost associated with the upgrading of effluent treatment facilities has been estimated in the range of $175 to $350 million. This range is defined as low range and high range in the following Table 4. The increase in annual operating costs is estimated in the order of $6 to $22 million. These annual operating costs of the additional treatment are supposed to be carried over a period of 15 years. Thus at the discount rates of 5 percent and 10 percent, the present value of these costs (including capital cost) is between $224 and $243 million for the low range, and between $516 and $576 million for the high range (the higher cost figures here refer to the lowest discount rate; the opposite is true for the lower cost figures).

Table 4: Overview of Estimated Effluent Treatment Costs

Industry Effluent Treatment Costs
Mining Sub-sector	Cost Range	Cost $ Millions		Present Value $ Millions (Over 15 Years)
		Capital	Annual Operating	Discount Rate 5%	Discount Rate 10%
Base Metal	High Range	65.9	4.6	113.6	100.9
	Low Range	21.2	1.7	38.8	34.1
Gold	High Range	133.0	15.8	297.0	253.2
	Low Range	24.1	4.4	69.8	57.6
Iron and other mines	High Range	151.2	1.4	165.7	161.8
	Low Range	130.0	0.4	134.1	133.0
Uranium	High Range	0	0	0	0
	Low Range	0	0	0	0
Total	High Range	350.1	21.8	576.3	515.9
	Low Range	175.3	6.5	242.7	224.7

Costs for Acute Lethality Testing

Acute lethality testing is a bioassay test procedure in which a fish and an aquatic invertebrate species (rainbow trout and Daphnia magna in the case of the proposed MMER) are exposed to undiluted effluent for a prescribed period of time under prescribed conditions. If more than 50 percent of the test species survive this exposure, the effluent is considered to have passed the test and to be "non-acutely lethal" to the species in question.

In May 1999, Environment Canada conducted a cost survey of Canadian laboratories in order to determine the cost of the single concentration of effluent test. Based on this survey, the average cost of these tests for exposure of rainbow trout and Daphnia Magna were around $170 and $160 respectively. Ontario mines are already required to conduct these tests under the provincial MISA program and thus are not impacted by the new test requirements of the proposed MMER. Assuming that all other mines would be required to perform these tests once each month, the total annual industry cost for acute lethality testing would be as summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Estimated Costs for Acute Lethality Testing

Test	Cost per Test	Tests per Year	Total Cost per Year and per Mine	Number of Mines	Total Cost per Year to Industry
Rainbow Trout	$170	12	$2,040	57	$116,280
Daphnia magna	$160	12	$1,920	57	$109,440
Total	$330		$3,960		$225,720

The present value of these costs for acute lethality, based upon 5 and 10 percent discount rates, would be $2.3 and $1.7 million, respectively, over a 15-year period.

Costs for Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM)

Since the nature of EEM is such that program requirements will be specific to each mine site and will have outcomes that are as yet unknown, it is difficult to estimate the cost of a "typical" EEM program. However, based on experience gained with the EEM program developed under the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations, it has been estimated that the cost of a three-year EEM cycle will be in the order of $115,000 to $145,000 for each mine. Therefore on an annual basis, the cost for the three-year EEM cycle would be in the range of about $38,000-$48,000 for an individual mine. Based on the above assumptions and a population of 93 mines, it is estimated that the average costs of EEM for the industry will be in the order of $4 million per year. More specifically, over a 15-year period, the present value of these EEM costs, based upon 5 and 10 percent discount rates, would be $42 and $31 million respectively. A breakdown of these estimated costs is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Estimated EEM Costs

EEM Activity	Cost Range per Mine (for a Three-Year EEM Cycle)
Fish Monitoring	$40,000-$50,000
Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring	$20,000-$25,000
Effluent Characterization	$6,000-$8,000
Water Quality Monitoring	$11,000-$15,000
Sublethal Toxicity Testing	$38,000-$47,000
Total	$115,000-$145,000
Average Annual Range per Mine	$38,333-$48,333
Average Annual Range for Industry	$3,565,000-$4,495,000
Median for Industry	$4,030,000

Summary of Industry Costs

Table 7 provides a summary of the various industry costs. It outlines the Present Values of industry costs based upon two discount rates measured over 15 years. The range of costs is based upon the low and high cost estimates for EEM testing and the incremental capital and operating costs associated with up-grading of effluent treatment facilities.

Table 7: Estimated Present Value of Industry Costs

Industry Costs
	Present Value $ Millions (Over 15 Years)
	Discount Rate	Discount Rate
Activity	5 %	10%
Acute Lethality Testing	2.3	1.7
Environmental Effects Monitoring ($4 million per year)	41.8	30.7
Upgrading Effluent Treatment (low cost range)	242.7	224.7
Upgrading Effluent Treatment (high cost range)	576.3	515.9
Total (low cost range)	286.8	257.1
Total (high cost range)	620.4	548.3

Costs to Government

Enforcement

For the first five years after making the proposed new Regulations, enforcement by Environment Canada is expected to require an additional annual budget of $599,000 broken down as follows: 5.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) at an approximate cost of $396,000 (based on an average salary of $60,000 per FTE and a 20 percent allowance for monetary benefits); $165,000 for operational costs; and $38,000 for laboratory costs. These additional costs will be associated with administrative compliance verifications, site inspections and, as necessary, the conduct of investigations, prosecutions and other enforcement actions.

Management of Compliance Data of the Proposed MMER

The management, analysis and reporting of compliance is expected to require one additional FTE and an incremental operational cost in the order of $50,000 per year. Based on a salary of $50,000 and a 20 percent allowance for benefits, the total cost associated with the management of compliance data is expected to be in the order of $110,000 per year.

EEM Management

The review and interpretation of site-specific EEM programs by Environment Canada are based upon the following functions:

— the review of each study design proposed by the owner or operator of a metal mine;

— the conduct of field audits of EEM programs;

— the review of each Interpretive Report;

— the review of ongoing monitoring data;

— ensuring the validity of ongoing monitoring data;

— preparing regional synopses; and

— tracking of EEM requirements for each mine.

It is expected that these activities will require an additional 11.8 FTEs of employee time each year and an incremental operational cost of approximately $539,000 per year. Based on an average salary of $50,000 per FTE and a 20 percent allowance for benefits, the total government cost associated with EEM management is expected to be in the order of $1.25 million per year.

Initial Implementation of the Proposed MMER

Initial implementation of the proposed new MMER will require additional resources by regional Environment Canada offices to improve awareness of the new regulatory requirements, review information on planned final discharge points, and process applications for some transitional authorizations. These costs would only be incurred during the first year of implementation. It is estimated that these tasks will require a commitment of an additional five FTEs of employee time and an incremental operational cost of approximately $110,000. Based on an average salary of $50,000 per FTE and a 20 percent allowance for benefits, the total cost associated with initial implementation is expected to be in the order of $410,000.

Summary of Costs to Government

Based on the above, the total first-year cost to Government is estimated to be in the order of $2.4 million. The total annual cost following the first-year implementation stage is expected to be in the order of $2 million. A summary breakdown of these costs is presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Summary of Estimated Annual Costs to Government

Activity	Annual Cost
Enforcement	$599,000
Management of Compliance Data	$110,000
EEM Management	$1,247,000
Initial Implementation (first year only)	$410,000
Total	$2,366,000

The present value of these government costs over a 15-year period would be approximately $20.3 million and $14.9 million assuming discount rates of 5 and 10 percent respectively.

Total Costs — Industry and Government

Based upon the estimates given in the previous sections, the total costs (Present Value over 15 years) for both industry and Government would be as summarized in Table 9.

Table 9: Present Value of Estimated Costs to Industry and Government

Total Costs — Present Value Over 15 Years $ Millions
Cost	Discount Rate 5%	Discount Rate 10%
Industry (Low Range)	286.8	257.1
Industry (High Range)	620.4	548.3
Government Costs	20.3	14.9
Total PV Costs (Low Range)	307.1	272.0
Total PV Costs (High Range)	640.7	563.2

Summary of Benefits

The fundamental objective of the proposed new MMER is to improve the management of metal mine effluents with a view improving the protection of fish, fish habitat and fisheries. This enhances the opportunity for future use of natural resources and thus promotes the concept of sustainable development.

The benefits associated with implementation of the proposed new MMER relate primarily to the following:

National Standards

Application of the Regulations to all Canadian metal mines (from approximately 30 mines in 1998 to approximately 90 mines in 2002) creates minimum national standards and a level playing field of environmental performance across the country for the mining sector.

EEM

The EEM program will help ensure that the proposed MMER achieves Fisheries Act objectives by providing a scientific evaluation to determine the effects of effluent on fish, fish habitat and fisheries. This information obtained through the EEM program can be used to determine the effectiveness of the proposed MMER and provide the basis for determining the need for enhanced site-specific or national pollution prevention and control measures.

TSS

Application of the new TSS standard to all Canadian metal mines will result in significantly reduced deposits of TSS from many mine sites. Elevated levels of TSS can reduce light penetration in streams and lakes thereby affecting ecosystem productivity. Other effects can include abrasion of fish gills and membranes, fish habitat alteration and sedimentation of benthic communities (Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines 1995). The lack of historical loading information makes it difficult to quantify the benefit of the new standard on an industry-wide basis. However, an analysis of 13 mines that are expected to require additional treatment to meet the standard indicates that TSS loading could be reduced by up to 95 percent at some sites (the average reduction for the 13 mines studied was 49 percent). (see footnote 2)

Non-acutely Lethal Effluent

The requirement for mines to produce non-acutely lethal effluent helps to ensure that there is a minimum standard in place across the sector for the protection of fish, fish habitat and fisheries, which is a fundamental objective of the Fisheries Act.

Other Benefits

Other benefits of these Regulations, while potentially significant, are difficult to quantify. These benefits fall into the two major categories discussed below.

Benefits to Users of Watercourses

Benefits to watercourse users include:

— an improvement in commercial and sport fishing, as well as in recreational use;

— protection of aboriginal fisheries;

— an increase in the value of properties located in close proximity to affected watercourses;

— a reduction in future costs of restoring polluted water courses and remediating altered fish habitat; and

— a general improvement in the quality of local ecosystems.

Quantifying the economic value of these benefits is extremely difficult. However, an indication of the importance of maintaining water quality in the vicinity of mine sites is provided by the 1996 Nature Survey (see footnote 3) which estimated that Canadians spent approximately $11 billion in nature-related activities. While the economic benefits of nature-related activities directly related to areas adjacent to mining operations is not known, an analysis of the geographical locations of metal mines and the geographic destinations of participants of nature-related activities from the 1996 Nature Survey suggests that approximately 1.3 million people participate in direct nature-related activities within a 50-kilometre radius of metal mine sites each year.

Benefits to Non-users of Watercourses

The Regulations will also benefit non-users of watercourses. These intrinsic benefits are related to:

— the "existence value" society places on preserving water resources for their own sake and passing improved environmental conditions on to future generations;

— the "assurance value" society places on preserving the option to use water resources in the future; and

— the value placed on knowing that the water quality has been improved.

Non-allocative Effects

Non-allocative effects are those that do not affect production or consumption by society, but can affect its distribution or composition.

The proposed MMER will require investment in new construction and equipment in order for all metal mines to comply with the new effluent criteria. This activity will result in new construction employment during the construction and installation stage. It is expected that there may be increased employment in the longer term to ensure continued compliance with the new effluent limits in the areas of maintenance, operations and engineering. The application of the proposed new MMER will enhance opportunities for the export of Canadian expertise and technology to other jurisdictions.

Finally, in terms of impact, the estimated incremental annual costs represent an increase in current operating costs in the order of less than half of one percent for the industry. With this small portion it is therefore expected that the implementation of the proposed new MMER will have an indiscernible impact on the Canadian economy as a whole. These data relative to the total industry costs are summarized in the following Table 10.

Table 10: Projected Impact of Proposed MMER on Industry O&M Costs

Comparison of Current Operating Costs in the Canadian Metal Mining Sector (1997) With Incremental MMER Costs ($ Millions)
Industry Operating Costs
Industry Cost — Materials & Supplies	4,040
Industry Cost — Electricity & Fuel	670
Industry Cost — Wages	2,130
Total Industry Operating Costs	6,840
Incremental Annual Operating Costs (Low Cost Range)
Industry Effluent Treatment Costs	6.5
Costs for Acute Lethality Tests	0.2
Costs for Environmental Effects Monitoring	4.0
Total Incremental Annual Operating Costs (Low Cost Range)	10.7
Incremental Annual Operating Costs (High Cost Range)
Industry Effluent Treatment Costs	21.2
Costs for Acute Lethality Tests	0.2
Costs for Environmental Effects Monitoring	4.0
Total Incremental Annual Operating Costs (High Cost Range)	25.4
Incremental Annual Operating Costs in Percentage of Total Industry Operating Costs
Low Cost Range	0.16%
High Cost Range	0.37%

Sources: Tables 4, 5 and 6 above.

Statistics Canada, Metal Mines — 1997, Catalogue No. 26-223-XIB, 1999, Table 1, pages 8 and 9.

Other Issues

The new requirements in the proposed MMER could prompt some mining companies to become more efficient in their operations and to use new processes, control technologies and pollution prevention practices. With the requirements to install new capital equipment, mining firms may re-examine other aspects of their operations to achieve cost savings and improve productivity. They could reduce material inputs, re-engineer processes to reuse by-products, improve management practices and employee awareness, and employ substitutions for toxic chemicals.

The proposed new MMER will provide a level playing field of environmental performance for all metal mines in the country. Establishing a uniform set of regulatory criteria will help to eliminate legislative distortions between jurisdictions which may negatively impact some metal mining companies and thereby harmonize the regulation of metal mining effluents in Canada.

Costs and Benefits — AATDR

Since the Kitsault mine has not been in operation for 18 years and the mine site reclamation workplan has been completed, repeal of the AATDR has no cost impacts.

Repealing the AATDR will help to ensure consistent application of the proposed new MMER to all Canadian metal mines.

Consultation

Proposed MMER

The proposed new MMER are the result of an extensive consultation process spanning a period of approximately six years.

The AQUAMIN process (between 1993 to 1996) involved approximately 100 representatives from federal departments, provincial ministries, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, and First Nations groups. Over the course of the assessment, over 700 reports related to more than 95 Canadian mine sites were reviewed and detailed case studies were conducted for 18 sites.

In response to the recommendations advanced in the AQUAMIN final report, a second consultation process for MMLER modernization was initiated. This involved a multi-stakeholder advisory group and several technical working groups to prepare recommendations for developing the proposed new MMER. As was the case with AQUAMIN, federal departments, provincial ministries, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations and First Nations groups were involved in the consultations. These groups met on a regular basis between 1997 and 1999 and shared drafts of various documents developed in support of the new Regulations.

During the course of these consultations, the main industry concerns were as follows:

— Industry indicated that it supports the objective of producing effluents that are non-acutely lethal but argued that it should not be a regulatory requirement until such time as Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) has been better demonstrated. The specific concern was that some mine sites may have difficulty identifying the cause of acute lethality and thus would not be able to address the problem despite best efforts to do so.

— Industry indicated that the new TSS limit would be challenging for some mines to achieve and questioned the environmental benefit of a more stringent standard.

— Industry expressed the opinion that some mines would need more time to achieve full compliance with the new requirements than was proposed. It was suggested that there should be a mechanism whereby mines could be granted an extended transitional authorization.

In developing the proposed new MMER, Environment Canada has been sensitive to the concerns of the mining industry, while carefully considering the need to protect fish, fish habitat and fisheries. The proposed new MMER effluent limits and non-acute lethality requirement reflect standards that are currently obtainable by the majority of Canadian metal mines and reflect similar provincial requirements in Ontario and Quebec, where the majority of metal mines are located. With regard to industry concerns regarding the availability of BATEA for some sites, Environment Canada was guided by the advice provided by the AQUAMIN report, which states: "The term 'economically achievable' does not imply that individual mine operators must have the economic and financial capacity to meet a proposed standard, but that technology must be affordable on a sectoral basis". (see footnote 4) The proposed MMER allow for the opportunity for some mines to obtain a two-year transitional authorization, under specified conditions, to come into compliance with the new effluent standards.

The main concerns expressed by environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) were as follows:

— ENGOs expressed the opinion that the requirements of the new Regulations are not stringent enough and should be more technology-forcing. They specifically took exception with the limits for metals, all of which they believe should be lower, and suggested that more metals be included. ENGOs also proposed that there be a regulatory requirement for effluent to be non-acutely lethal to Daphnia magna as well as rainbow trout. (Monitoring of acute lethality is required for both species.)

— ENGOs expressed concern over the timing of the coming into force of the Regulations. They are of the opinion that there should be no transitional authorizations and that all mines should be in compliance with the Regulations upon proclamation.

— ENGOs were concerned that the new Regulations do not provide a definitive regulatory requirement for mines to address effects that are determined during the conduct of EEM programs.

As per the recommendations of the AQUAMIN report, Environment Canada has based the proposed standards on the results of comprehensive studies of acute lethality data and treatment technologies applicable to the management of Canadian mining effluents, bearing in mind the AQUAMIN recommendation to develop a BATEA-based regulation. The timing of the coming into force of the new effluent requirements was developed taking into account the AQUAMIN recommendation that "there be a transition period to ensure that any mines that are not under regulation or not in compliance have a reasonable period to improve their control systems". (see footnote 5) EEM programs required under the proposed MMER are designed to evaluate the effects of effluent on fish and fish habitat. Once an unsustainable effect attributable to an effluent has been confirmed, mitigation and remediation strategies will be evaluated on a site-specific basis. In addition, site-specific information will be collated and assessed as a basis of evaluating the need for enhanced protection on a regional or national scale. Environment Canada will consult with stakeholders on how such evaluations will be conducted.

All views, comments, concerns and preferences of the various stakeholders were carefully evaluated and taken into consideration during the development of the new Regulations. In addition, scientific and legal considerations had to be taken into account.

AATDR

In October 1999, the owner of the Kitsault mine, Climax Canada Limited, was contacted about the proposed repeal of these Regulations. No response had been received at the time of writing of this assessment.

The Nisga'a Tribal Council has opposed the AATDR since its inception and has been actively seeking its repeal since 1980. One environmental non-governmental organization (the David Suzuki Foundation) that expressed its opposition to the AATDR during the 1992-1994 regulatory review has also been informed about the proposed repeal of these Regulations.

Compliance and Enforcement

As these Regulations will be enforced by Environment Canada, the provisions of the Enforcement and Compliance Policy for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 will be used as a guide until the Compliance Policy for the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act are completed.

Under the Enforcement and Compliance Policy, the following general principles apply:

— Compliance with the Act and its regulations is mandatory.

— Enforcement officials will apply the Act in a manner that is fair, predictable and consistent. They will use rules, sanctions and processes securely founded in law.

— Enforcement officials will administer the Act with an emphasis on prevention of damage to the environment.

— Enforcement officials will examine every suspected violation of which they have knowledge, and will take action consistent with the Enforcement and Compliance Policy.

— Enforcement officials will encourage the reporting to them of suspected violations of the Act.

Compliance monitoring will be conducted to verify that metal mining activities are carried out in accordance with the proposed Regulations. Inspectors will verify compliance with injunctions and court orders. Compliance monitoring may also measure potentially harmful impacts on the environment associated with the suspected violations.

Means to accomplish compliance monitoring include:

— inspections;

— mandatory reporting;

— sampling by enforcement officials; and

— monitoring of releases.

In verifying compliance with these proposed Regulations, inspectors will abide by the Enforcement and Compliance Policy which sets out a range of possible responses to offenses, including warnings, inspector's directions, ticketing, ministerial orders, injunctions, prosecution, and civil suits by the Crown for the recovery of costs. If an inspector confirms that an infraction has been committed, the inspector will select the appropriate response based on the following criteria:

— nature of the offense;

— effectiveness in achieving the desired result with the offender; and

— consistency.

Contacts

Patrick G. Finlay, Chief, Minerals and Metals Division, Environment Canada, Place Vincent Massey, 13th Floor, Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3, (819) 953-1103 (Telephone), (819) 953-5053 (Facsimile), Patrick.Finlay@ec.gc.ca (Electronic mail), or Arthur Sheffield, Regulatory and Economic Analysis Branch, Environment Canada, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 22nd Floor, 10 Wellington Street, Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3, (819) 953-1172 (Telephone), (819) 997-2769 (Facsimile), Arthur.Sheffield@ec. gc.ca (Electronic mail).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsections 34(2), 36(5) and 38(9) of the Fisheries Act, proposes to make the annexed Metal Mining Effluent Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Mr. Patrick G. Finlay, Chief, Minerals & Metals Division, National Office of Pollution Prevention, Environment Canada, 351 St. Joseph Blvd., Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3, Telephone: (819) 953-1103, Facsimile: (819) 953-5053, E-mail: Patrick.Finlay@ec.gc.ca.

The representations should stipulate those parts of the representations that should not be disclosed pursuant to the Access to Information Act and, in particular, pursuant to sections 19 and 20 of that Act, the reason why those parts should not be disclosed and the period during which they should remain undisclosed. The representations should also stipulate those parts of the representations for which there is consent to disclosure pursuant to the Access to Information Act.

Ottawa, July 12, 2001

RENNIE M. MARCOUX
Acting Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

METAL MINING EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

PART 1

GENERAL

Interpretation

1. (1) The following definitions apply in these Regulations.

"Act" means the Fisheries Act. (Loi)

"acute lethality test" means the test to determine the acute lethality of effluent to rainbow trout as set out in Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13. (essai de détermination de la létalité aiguë)

"acutely lethal effluent" means an effluent at 100% concentration that kills more than 50% of the rainbow trout subjected to it during a 96-hour period when tested in accordance with the acute lethality test. (effluent à létalité aiguë)

"authorization officer" means the holder of the title that is set out in column 2 of Schedule 1 for a province that is set out in column 1 where a mine or recognized closed mine is located. (agent d'autorisation)

"commercial operation", in respect of a mine, means an average rate of production equal to or greater than 25% of the design rated capacity of the mine over a period of 90 consecutive days. (exploitation commerciale)

"composite sample" means

(a) a quantity of effluent consisting of not less than three equal volumes or three volumes proportionate to flow that have been collected at approximately equal time intervals over a sampling period of not less than seven hours and not more than 24 hours; or

(b) a quantity of effluent collected continuously at a constant rate or at a rate proportionate to the rate of flow of the effluent over a sampling period of not less than seven hours and not more than 24 hours. (échantillon composite)

"Daphnia magna monitoring test" means the test to determine the acute lethality of effluent to Daphnia magna as set out in Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14. (essai de suivi avec bioessais sur la Daphnia magna)

"deleterious substance" means a substance prescribed under section 3 except as otherwise prescribed by these Regulations. (substance nocive)

"effluent" means mine water effluent, mill process effluent, tailings impoundment area effluent, treatment pond or treatment facility effluent, seepage and surface drainage that contains a deleterious substance. (effluent)

"final discharge point", in respect of an effluent, means an identifiable discharge point of a mine beyond which the operator of the mine no longer exercises control over the quality of the effluent. (point de rejet final)

"grab sample" means a quantity of undiluted effluent collected at a time prescribed by these Regulations. (échantillon instantané)

"mill process effluent" means tailing slurries, heap leaching effluent, solution mining effluent and all other effluent deposited from a milling or processing operation. (effluent d'installations de préparation du minerai)

"mine" means mining or milling facilities that are designed or used to produce a metal concentrate or an ore from which a metal or metal concentrate may be produced or any facilities, including smelters, pelletizing plants, sintering plants, refineries and acid plants, where any effluent from the facility is combined with the effluent from mining or milling. (mine)

"mine under development" means a mine where the construction of an open pit or underground mine has started. (mine en développement)

"mine water effluent" means, in respect of mining activities, water that is pumped from or flows out of any underground works, solution chambers or open pits. (effluent d'eau de mine)

"monthly mean concentration" means the average value of the concentrations measured in all composite or grab samples collected from each final discharge point during each month when a deleterious substance is deposited. (concentration moyenne mensuelle)

"new mine" means a mine that begins commercial operation on or after the date of registration of these Regulations. (nouvelle mine)

"operations area" means all the land and works that are used or have been used in conjunction with mining or milling activity, including

(a) open pits, underground mines, heap leaching areas, solution mines, buildings, ore storage areas and waste rock dumps;

(b) tailings impoundment areas, lagoons and treatment ponds; and

(c) cleared or disturbed areas that are adjacent to the land and works. (chantier)

"operator" means the person who operates, has control or custody of or is in charge of a mine or recognized closed mine. (exploitant)

"placer mining" means a mining operation that extracts minerals or metals from stream sediments by gravity or magnetic separation. (exploitation des placers)

"recognized closed mine" means a mine for which the owner or operator has satisfied the requirements of subsection 31(1). (mine fermée reconnue)

"Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13" means Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Rainbow Trout (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13), July 1990, published by the Department of the Environment, as amended in May 1996, and as may be further amended from time to time. (méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/13)

"Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14" means Biological Test Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Daphnia magna (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14), July 1990, published by the Department of the Environment, as amended in May 1996, and as may be further amended from time to time. (méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/14)

"reopened mine" means a mine that resumes commercial operation on or after the date of registration of these Regulations. (mine remise en exploitation)

"surface drainage" means all surface run-off contaminated by a deleterious substance as a result of flowing over, through or out of an operations area. (eau de drainage superficiel)

"tailings impoundment area" means

(a) a water or place set out in Schedule 2; or

(b) a disposal area that is confined by anthropogenic or natural structures or by both, but does not include a disposal area that is, or is part of, a natural water body that is frequented by fish. (dépôt de résidus miniers)

"total suspended solids" means any solid matter that is retained on a 1.5 micron pore filter paper when the effluent is tested in accordance with the analytical requirements set out in Schedule 3. (total des solides en suspension)

"transitional authorization" means a temporary authorization issued by an authorization officer in accordance with section 34. (autorisation transitoire)

(2) Where the word "mine" is used in sections 2 to 38, it includes a mine, a mine under development, a new mine and a reopened mine but does not refer to a recognized closed mine.

Application

2. (1) These Regulations apply in respect of mines and recognized closed mines that

(a) exceed a total effluent flow rate of 50 m³ per day at any time after these Regulations are registered; and

(b) deposit a deleterious substance in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act.

(2) Despite subsection (1), these Regulations do not apply in respect of mines that stopped commercial operation before the registration of these Regulations, unless they are reopened after the registration of these Regulations, or in respect of placer mining operations.

Deleterious Substances

3. For the purpose of these Regulations, the substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 and any acutely lethal effluent are prescribed as deleterious substances.

Authority to Deposit

4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the owner or operator of a mine may deposit, or permit the deposit of, an effluent that contains a deleterious substance in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act if a transitional authorization permits the deposit or if

(a) the concentration of the deleterious substance in the effluent does not exceed the authorized limits set out in Schedule 4;

(b) the pH of the effluent is equal to or greater than 6.0 but is not greater than 9.5; and

(c) the deleterious substance is not an acutely lethal effluent.

(2) The authority in subsection (1) is conditional

(a) in the case of a transitional authorization that permits the deposit, on the owner or operator complying with section 35; and

(b) in all other cases, on the owner or operator complying with sections 6 to 26.

Authority to Deposit in Tailings Impoundment Areas

5. (1) Despite section 4, the owner or operator of a mine may deposit or permit the deposit of an effluent that contains any concentration of a deleterious substance and that is of any pH into a tailings impoundment area.

(2) The authority in subsection (1) is conditional on the owner or operator complying with sections 7 to 27.

PART 2

CONDITIONS GOVERNING AUTHORITY TO DEPOSIT

DIVISION 1

GENERAL

Prohibition on Diluting Effluent

6. The owner or operator of a mine shall not combine effluent with water or any other effluent for the purpose of diluting effluent before it is deposited.

Environmental Effects Monitoring

7. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall conduct environmental effects monitoring studies of the potential effects of effluent on the fish population, on fish tissue and on the benthic invertebrate community in accordance with the requirements and within the time periods set out in Schedule 5.

(2) The owner or operator shall record the results of the studies and submit the reports and required information to the authorization officer as set out in Schedule 5.

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

Identifying Information

8. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall submit in writing to the authorization officer the information referred to in subsection (2) not later than 60 days after the day on which

(a) the mine becomes subject to these Regulations; or

(b) ownership of the mine is transferred.

(2) The information that shall be submitted is the name and address of

(a) both the owner and the operator of the mine; and

(b) any parent company of the owner or the operator.

(3) The owner or operator shall notify the authorization officer of any change in the information not later than 60 days after the change occurs.

Final Discharge Points

9. The owner or operator of a mine shall identify each final discharge point and submit in writing to the authorization officer, not later than 60 days after the day on which the mine becomes subject to these Regulations, the following information

(a) plans, specifications and a general description of each final discharge point together with its specific geo-referenced location; and

(b) a description of how each final discharge point is designed and maintained in respect of the deposit of deleterious substances.

10. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall submit in writing to the authorization officer the information required by section 9, for

(a) any final discharge point that is identified by an inspector, and that was not identified as required by section 9, within 30 days after the discharge point is identified; and

(b) each new final discharge point, at least 60 days before depositing effluent from that new final discharge point.

(2) The owner or operator shall submit in writing to the authorization officer information on any proposed change to a final discharge point at least 60 days before the change is made.

Monitoring Equipment Information

11. The owner or operator of a mine shall keep records relating to effluent monitoring equipment that contain

(a) a description of the equipment and, if applicable, the manufacturer's specifications and the year and model number of the equipment; and

(b) the results of the calibration tests of the equipment.

DIVISION 2

EFFLUENT MONITORING CONDITIONS

Deleterious Substance and pH Testing

12. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall, not less than once per week, collect from each final discharge point a grab sample or composite sample of effluent and, without delay, record the pH and concentrations of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4.

(2) Testing conducted under subsection (1) shall comply with the analytical requirements set out in Schedule 3.

13. (1) Despite section 12 and subject to subsection (2), the owner or operator of a mine may reduce the frequency of testing for a deleterious substance that is set out in column 1 of items 1 to 6 or 8 of Schedule 4 to not less than once in each calendar quarter if that substance's monthly mean concentration in the effluent is less than 10% of the value set out in column 2 of that Schedule for the 12 months immediately preceding the most recent test.

(2) The owner or operator shall increase the frequency of testing to that prescribed in section 12 for a deleterious substance that is set out in column 1 of items 1 to 6 or 8 of Schedule 4 if the substance's monthly mean concentration is equal to or greater than 10% of the value set out in column 2 of that Schedule.

Acute Lethality Testing

14. (1) Subject to section 15, the owner or operator of a mine shall collect from each final discharge point a grab sample and conduct an acute lethality test, in accordance with the requirements and procedures specified in Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13,

(a) once a month, in accordance with the procedure set out in section 5 or 6 of that document; and

(b) without delay, in accordance with the procedure set out in section 6 of that document, if a deposit occurs that is out of the normal course of events.

(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), the owner or operator shall

(a) select and record the sampling date not less than 30 days in advance of collecting the grab sample; and

(b) collect the grab samples not less than 15 days apart.

(3) When collecting a grab sample of effluent for the purpose of subsection (1), the owner or operator shall collect a sufficient volume of effluent to enable the owner or operator to comply with paragraph 15(1)(a).

Increased Frequency of Acute Lethality Testing

15. (1) If a sample of effluent is determined to be acutely lethal when tested under paragraph 14(1)(a), the owner or operator of a mine shall

(a) without delay, conduct the effluent characterization set out in subsection 4(1) of Schedule 5 on the aliquot of each grab sample collected under paragraph 14(1)(a);

(b) collect from each final discharge point a grab sample twice a month and conduct an acute lethality test on each grab sample without delay in accordance with the requirements and procedures set out in section 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13; and

(c) collect the grab samples not less than seven days apart.

(2) The owner or operator may resume sampling and testing at the frequency prescribed in section 14 if the effluent is determined not to be acutely lethal in three consecutive tests conducted under paragraph (1)(b).

Reduced Frequency of Acute Lethality Testing

16. (1) The owner or operator of a mine may reduce the frequency of conducting acute lethality tests prescribed in subsection 14(1)(a) to once in each calendar quarter if the effluent is determined not to be acutely lethal over a period of 12 consecutive months.

(2) For the purpose of determining whether effluent is acutely lethal in the 12-month period referred to in subsection (1), the owner or operator shall use the results of the acute lethality tests conducted under subsection 14(1)(a).

(3) Despite subsection (2), for the purpose of determining whether effluent is acutely lethal in the 12-month period referred to in subsection (1), the owner or operator may also use acute lethality data collected during twelve consecutive months prior to the date of registration of these Regulations, if the owner or operator submits a report to the authorization officer that indicates that the data

(a) meets the quality assurance requirements of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13;

(b) relates to effluent generated after the start of commercial operation by the mine; and

(c) was collected not more than 36 months before the registration of these Regulations.

(4) The owner or operator who reduces the frequency of conducting acute lethality testing under subsection (1) shall

(a) select and record the sampling date not less than 30 days in advance of collecting the grab samples; and

(b) collect the grab samples not less than 45 days apart.

(5) If a grab sample is determined to be acutely lethal while the testing is proceeding in accordance with subsection (1), the owner or operator shall increase the frequency and conduct the testing as prescribed in section 15.

Daphnia magna Monitoring Tests

17. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall conduct Daphnia magna monitoring tests in accordance with the procedure set out in section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 at the same time that the acute lethality tests are conducted under section 14, 15 or 16 of these Regulations.

(2) The owner or operator shall conduct Daphnia magna monitoring tests on the aliquots of each effluent sample collected for the acute lethality tests.

Obligation to Record All Test Results

18. The owner or operator of a mine shall record without delay the information specified by section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and by section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 for all acute lethality and Daphnia magna monitoring tests that are conducted to monitor deposits from final discharge points.

Volume of Effluent and Flow Rate

19. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall record without delay in cubic metres the total monthly volume of effluent deposited from each final discharge point.

(2) The total monthly effluent volume deposited from each final discharge point shall be based on the average of the flow rates that are measured in accordance with subsection (3).

(3) The owner or operator shall

(a) measure flow rates at the same time at which samples are collected under section 12 unless the owner or operator uses a system that takes continuous measurements;

(b) use monitoring equipment that is accurate to within 15% of measured flow; and

(c) calibrate the monitoring equipment not less than once in each year and record the results.

Calculation of Loading

20. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall record in kilograms the total monthly mass loading of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 contained in the effluent deposited from each final discharge point.

(2) The owner or operator shall determine the total monthly mass loading by multiplying the monthly mean concentration of the deleterious substance by the total monthly volume of effluent deposited from each final discharge point.

(3) If the analytical result from any test conducted under section 12 is less than the method detection limit set out in column 4 of Schedule 3, the test result shall be considered to be zero for the purpose of performing a calculation under subsection (2).

Reporting Monitoring Results

21. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall submit to the authorization officer an effluent monitoring report for all tests and monitoring conducted during each calendar quarter not later than 45 days after the end of the quarter.

(2) The effluent monitoring report shall include

(a) the information specified by section 8.1.3 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and by section 8.1.3 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 as required by section 18;

(b) the concentration and monthly mean concentration of each deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 that is contained in effluent samples collected under subsection 12(1) and the concentrations of such deleterious substances contained in effluent samples collected under subsection 13(1);

(c) the pH of the effluent samples as required by subsection 12(1);

(d) whether a composite or grab sample collection method was used for each effluent sample as required by subsection 12(1);

(e) the total volume of effluent deposited during each month of the reporting quarter as recorded under section 19;

(f) the total mass loading of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 contained in the effluent deposited during each month of the reporting quarter as recorded under section 20; and

(g) the results of the effluent characterization conducted under paragraph 15(1)(a).

22. The owner or operator of a mine shall submit to the authorization officer, not later than March 31 in each year, a report summarizing the effluent monitoring results for the previous calendar year in the form set out in Schedule 6.

23. A report referred to in sections 7, 21 and 22 shall be submitted in writing and in the electronic format, if any, provided by the federal Department of the Environment.

24. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall notify an inspector without delay if the results of the effluent monitoring tests conducted under sections 12 to 16 indicate that

(a) the limits set out in Schedule 4 are being or have been exceeded;

(b) the pH of the effluent is less than 6.0 or greater than 9.5; or

(c) an effluent is acutely lethal.

(2) The owner or operator shall provide a written report of the test results to the inspector within 30 days after the tests have been completed.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the owner or operator of a mine with a valid transitional authorization.

DIVISION 3

NOTICE, RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

End of Commercial Operation Notice

25. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall notify the authorization officer in writing of the day on which the mine has stopped commercial operation not later than 90 days after the end of commercial operation.

(2) The owner or operator shall notify the authorization officer in writing without delay if the mine returns to commercial operation.

Records, Books of Account or Other Documents

26. The owner or operator of a mine shall keep all records, books of account or other documents required by these Regulations at the mine's location for a period of not less than five years, beginning on the day they are made.

DIVISION 4

TAILING IMPOUNDMENT AREAS

Deposits from Tailings Impoundment Areas

27. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall deposit effluent from a tailings impoundment area only through final discharge points that are monitored and reported on in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations.

(2) The owner or operator of a mine shall comply with section 6 and the conditions prescribed in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c) for all effluent that exits a tailing impoundment area.

PART 3

DEPOSITS OUT OF THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS

Prescribed Authorities

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

(a) the Environmental Protection Service of the federal Department of the Environment in the province where the mine is located; and

(b) the department or ministry that is responsible for environmental matters in the province where the deposit occurred or would occur, if the Minister has an arrangement with that department or ministry to receive the report and the Minister notifies the owner or operator of the mine of the arrangement.

Emergency Response Plan

29. (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall establish, and update annually, an emergency response plan that describes the measures to be taken to prevent the deposit of a deleterious substance out of the normal course of events or to mitigate the effects of that deposit.

(2) The plan shall include

(a) a site risk analysis;

(b) an organizational scheme for emergency responses, including the roles and responsibilities of the mine's personnel;

(c) alerting and notification procedures;

(d) an inventory of spill-response equipment, including the location of that equipment; and

(e) a training plan for the mine's personnel.

(3) The owner or operator shall complete the emergency response plan and have it available for inspection not later than eight months after the day on which these Regulations are registered or not more than 60 days after the mine becomes subject to these Regulations, whichever is later.

Reporting

30. (1) Any person required by subsection 38(4) of the Act to report the occurrence of a deposit out of the normal course of events of a deleterious substance within the meaning of subsection 34(1) of the Act, or to report if there is a serious and imminent danger of such a deposit, shall without delay report the occurrence or danger to an inspector or to an authority prescribed in section 28 and shall, if a deposit has occurred, submit a written report to the inspector or the authority as soon as possible in the circumstances and in any event not later than 30 days after the deposit occurred.

(2) The written report shall contain

(a) the name, description and concentration of the deleterious substance deposited;

(b) the estimated quantity of the deposit and how the estimate was achieved;

(c) the quantity of any deleterious substance that was deposited at a place other than through a final discharge point;

(d) the quantity of any deleterious substance that was deposited through a final discharge point; and

(e) the circumstances of the deposit, the measures that were taken to mitigate the effects of the deposit and, if the emergency response plan was implemented, details concerning its implementation.

PART 4

RECOGNIZED CLOSED MINES

Requirements

31. (1) An owner or operator who intends to close a mine shall

(a) provide written notice of that intention to the authorization officer;

(b) maintain the mine's rate of production at less than 25% of its design rated capacity for a continuous period of three years starting on the day that the written notice is received by the authorization officer; and

(c) conduct a biological monitoring study during the three-year period referred to in paragraph (b) in accordance with Division 3 of Part 2 of Schedule 5.

(2) A mine becomes a recognized closed mine after the expiry of the three-year period referred to in subsection (1), and any deposit from that recognized closed mine is subject to the prohibitions in subsection 36(3) of the Act.

(3) The owner or operator shall notify the authorization officer in writing without delay if the recognized closed mine reopens.

(4) The owner or operator of a recognized closed mine shall keep in Canada all records, books of account or other documents required by these Regulations for a period of not less than five years beginning on the day they are made, and shall notify the authorization officer in writing of their location.

Identifying Information

32. (1) The owner or operator of a recognized closed mine shall submit in writing to the authorization officer the information referred to in subsection (2) not later than 60 days after the day on which

(a) the recognized closed mine becomes subject to these Regulations; or

(b) ownership of the recognized closed mine is transferred.

(2) The information that shall be submitted is the name and address of

(a) both the owner and the operator of the recognized closed mine; and

(b) any parent company of the owner or the operator.

(3) The owner or operator shall notify the authorization officer of any change in the information not later than 60 days after the change occurs.

PART 5

TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS

Application for Transitional Authorization

33. (1) The owner or operator of a mine may apply to an authorization officer for a transitional authorization that permits the deposit of

(a) an acutely lethal effluent, unless another law of the jurisdiction where the mine is located requires that the mine produce a non-acutely lethal effluent;

(b) an effluent containing any concentration of a deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4, unless another law of the jurisdiction where the mine is located requires that the mine produce an effluent containing the deleterious substance in a concentration that is equal to or less than the limits set out in Schedule 4; and

(c) an effluent of any pH, unless another law of the jurisdiction where the mine is located requires that the mine produce an effluent with a pH equal to or greater than 6.0 but not greater than 9.5.

(2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), the owner or operator may apply for a transitional authorization to deposit acutely lethal effluent only if the mine produced such an effluent at any time during the 12-month period preceding the application.

(3) The owner or operator shall submit an application for a transitional authorization at least 90 days before the coming into force of section 4 and shall submit with the application

(a) the information required by Part 1 of Schedule 7 including

(b) a description of the facilities and procedures that are necessary to deposit an effluent that complies with paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c) not later than the day on which the transitional authorization expires;

(c) a proposed schedule for the construction of the facilities and implementation of the procedures; and

(d) a signed statement of certification as set out in Part 2 of Schedule 7.

Issuance of Transitional Authorization

34. (1) An authorization officer shall issue to the owner or operator of a mine a transitional authorization, if

(a) the owner or operator is entitled to make the application under subsections 33(1) and (2) and has complied with subsection 33(3); and

(b) any construction of facilities and the implementation of the procedures described by the owner or operator under paragraph 33(3)(b) will result in the deposit of an effluent that complies with the requirements prescribed in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c) not later than the day on which the transitional authorization expires.

(2) The authorization officer shall issue a transitional authorization in the form set out in Schedule 8 and provide in the authorization

(a) for the deposit of acutely lethal effluent, the information required by Part 1 of Schedule 8; and

(b) for the deposit of effluent that contains a deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4, the information required by Part 2 of Schedule 8, including the maximum concentration of the deleterious substances and the pH range of the effluent the determination of which are specified in that Schedule.

(3) Authorization officers shall maintain a public record of all transitional authorizations issued for mines located in the province where they perform their functions.

Transitional Authorization Obligations

35. An owner or operator of a mine who has been issued a transitional authorization

(a) shall comply with sections 6 to 26 and, if the mine is depositing effluent into a tailings impoundment area, subsection 27(1);

(b) shall start the construction of the facilities and implement the procedures referred to in paragraph 33(3)(b) in a timely manner;

(c) shall report to the authorization officer, without delay, any change in the information provided under subsection 33(3);

(d) shall not deposit effluent that contains a deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 that exceeds the maximum concentration that is specified in the transitional authorization or has a pH that is outside the pH range specified in the transitional authorization; and

(e) shall not deposit effluent that is acutely lethal unless authorized to do so in the transitional authorization.

Transitional Authorization Reporting

36. (1) The owner or operator of a mine with a valid transitional authorization shall notify an inspector without delay if

(a) an effluent that contains a deleterious substance set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 exceeds the concentration or is outside the pH range that is specified in the transitional authorization; or

(b) an acutely lethal effluent is being or has been deposited, unless the deposit of acutely lethal effluent is authorized in the transitional authorization.

(2) The owner or operator shall provide to the inspector a written report of any test results which identified that the effluent contains a deleterious substance or is acutely lethal under subsection (1) within 30 days after the tests have been completed.

Revocation of Transitional Authorizations

37. An authorization officer may revoke a transitional authorization if

(a) the information provided by the owner or operator of a mine to support the application for the transitional authorization is false or incomplete; or

(b) the owner or operator has failed to comply with any requirement prescribed in sections 35 and 36.

Expiry of Transitional Authorizations

38. All transitional authorizations expire 30 months after the day on which these Regulations are registered.

PART 6

REPEALS AND COMING INTO FORCE

Repeals

39. The Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations (see footnote 6) are repealed.

40. The Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations (see footnote 7) are repealed.

Coming into Force

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

(2) Sections 3 to 32 and 35 to 38 and 40 come into force six months after the day on which these Regulations are registered.

SCHEDULE 1
(Subsection 1(1))

AUTHORIZATION OFFICERS

Item	Column 1 Province	Column 2 Title
1.	Ontario	Director, Environmental Protection Ontario Region Department of the Environment
2.	Quebec	Director, Environmental Protection Quebec Region Department of the Environment
3.	Nova Scotia	Director, Environmental Protection Atlantic Region Department of the Environment
4.	New Brunswick	Director, Environmental Protection Atlantic Region Department of the Environment
5.	Manitoba	Director, Environmental Protection Prairie and Northern Region Department of the Environment
6.	British Columbia	Director, Environmental Protection Pacific and Yukon Region Department of the Environment
7.	Prince Edward Island	Director, Environmental Protection Atlantic Region Department of the Environment
8.	Saskatchewan	Director, Environmental Protection Prairie and Northern Region Department of the Environment
9.	Alberta	Director, Environmental Protection Prairie and Northern Region Department of the Environment
10.	Newfoundland	Director, Environmental Protection Atlantic Region Department of the Environment
11.	Yukon Territory	Director, Environmental Protection Pacific and Yukon Region Department of the Environment
12.	Northwest Territories	Director, Environmental Protection Prairie and Northern Region Department of the Environment
13.	Nunavut	Director, Environmental Protection Prairie and Northern Region Department of the Environment

SCHEDULE 2
(Subsection 1(1))

TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT AREAS

Item	Column 1 Water or Place	Column 2 Description
1.	Anderson Lake, Manitoba	Anderson Lake located at 54° 51' north latitude and 100° 0' west longitude near the town of Snow Lake, Manitoba. More precisely, the area bounded by
		(a) the contour of elevation around Anderson Lake at the 285-m level, and (b) the control dam built at the east end of Anderson Lake.
2.	Garrow Lake, Northwest Territories	Garrow Lake located at 75° 23' north latitude and 97° 48' west longitude near the south end of Little Cornwallis Island, Northwest Territories.
3.	South Kemess Creek, British Columbia	That part of South Kemess Creek being within the watershed of that tributary of South Kemess Creek (a) extending eastwards and upstream from the centre of a tailings dam constructed at 57° 1' north latitude and 126° 41' west longitude, and (b) below the crest of the dam at an elevation of 1515 m.
4.	Albino Lake, British Columbia	Albino Lake located at 56° 39.4' north latitude and 130° 29.4' west longitude near the Eskay Creek Mine in British Columbia. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around Albino Lake at the 1040-m level, and (b) the outlet of Albino Lake.
5.	Tom MacKay Lake, British Columbia	Tom MacKay Lake located at 56° 39' north latitude and 130° 34' west longitude near the Eskay Creek Mine in British Columbia. More precisely, the area bounded by (a) the contour of elevation around Tom MacKay Lake at the 1078-m level, and (b) the outlet of Tom MacKay Lake.

SCHEDULE 3
(Subsections 1(1), 12(2) and 20(3))

ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR METAL MINING EFFLUENT

Item	Column 1 Deleterious Substance/pH	Column 2 Precision1	Column 3 Accuracy2	Column 4 Method Detection Limit (MDL)
1.	Arsenic	10%	100 ± 10%	0.010 mg/L
2.	Copper	10%	100 ± 10%	0.005 mg/L
3.	Cyanide	10%	100 ± 10%	0.010 mg/L
4.	Lead	10%	100 ± 10%	0.005 mg/L
5.	Nickel	10%	100 ± 10%	0.010 mg/L
6.	Zinc	10%	100 ± 10%	0.010 mg/L
7.	Total Suspended Solids	15%	100 ± 15%	2.000 mg/L
8.	Radium 226	10%	100 ± 10%	0.01 Bq/L
9.	pH	0.1 pH unit	0.1 pH unit	Not Applicable

¹ Relative standard deviation at concentrations 10 times above the MDL.

² Analyte recovery at concentrations above 10 times the MDL.

SCHEDULE 4
(Section 3, paragraph 4(1)(a), subsection 12(1), section 13, subsection 20(1) and paragraphs 21(2)(b) and (f), 24(1)(a), 33(1)(b) and (3)(a), 34(2)(b), 35(d) and 36(1)(a))

AUTHORIZED LIMITS OF DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES

Item	Column 1 Deleterious Substance	Column 2 Maximum Authorized Monthly Mean Concentration	Column 3 Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Composite Sample	Column 4 Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Grab Sample
1.	Arsenic	0.50 mg/L	0.75 mg/L	1.00 mg/L
2.	Copper	0.30 mg/L	0.45 mg/L	0.60 mg/L
3.	Cyanide	1.00 mg/L	1.50 mg/L	2.00 mg/L
4.	Lead	0.20 mg/L	0.30 mg/L	0.40 mg/L
5.	Nickel	0.50 mg/L	0.75 mg/L	1.00 mg/L
6.	Zinc	0.50 mg/L	0.75 mg/L	1.00 mg/L
7.	Total Suspended Solids	15.00 mg/L	22.50 mg/L	30.00 mg/L
8.	Radium 226	0.37 Bq/L	0.74 Bq/L	1.11 Bq/L

NOTE: All concentrations are total values.

SCHEDULE 5
(Section 7 and paragraph 15(1)(a))

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING STUDIES

INTERPRETATION

1. The following definitions apply in this Schedule.

"effect on the benthic invertebrate community" means a statistical difference between benthic invertebrate community measurements taken in an exposure area and a reference area or a statistical difference between measurements taken at sampling areas in the exposure area that indicate gradually decreasing effluent concentrations. (effet sur la communauté d'invertébrés benthiques)

"effect on the fish population" means a statistical difference between fish population measurements taken in an exposure area and a reference area. (effet sur la population de poissons)

"effect on fish tissue" means measurements of total mercury that exceed 0.45 µg/g wet weight in fish tissue taken in an exposure area and that are statistically different from the measurements of total mercury in fish tissue taken in a reference area. (effet sur les tissus de poissons)

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

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

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

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

2. Environmental effects monitoring studies consist of effluent and water quality monitoring studies set out in Part 1, and biological monitoring studies set out in Part 2 of this Schedule.

PART 1

EFFLUENT AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING STUDIES

Required Studies

3. Effluent and water quality monitoring studies consist of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring.

Effluent Characterization

4. (1) Effluent characterization is conducted by analysing a sample of effluent and recording the hardness and alkalinity of the sample and the total concentrations of the following:

(a) aluminum;

(b) cadmium;

(c) iron;

(d) subject to subsection (3), mercury;

(e) molybdenum;

(f) ammonia; and

(g) nitrate.

(2) The effluent characterization shall be conducted once in each calendar quarter on aliquots of effluent sample collected under sections 12 and 13 of these Regulations, with the first characterization to be conducted on an aliquot of effluent collected not later than six months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations.

(3) The recording of the concentration of total mercury in effluent referred to in paragraph 1(d) may be discontinued if that concentration is less than 0.05 µg/L in 12 consecutive samples collected under subsection (2).

(4) Quality assurance and quality control measures shall be implemented that will ensure the accuracy of the effluent characterization data.

Sublethal Toxicity Testing

5. (1) Sublethal toxicity testing shall be conducted by following the applicable methods referred to in subsections (3) and (4) and recording the results for

(a) a fish species, an invertebrate species, a plant species and an algal species, in the case of effluent deposited into fresh waters; and

(b) a fish species, an invertebrate species and an algal species, in the case of effluent deposited into marine or estuarine waters.

(2) The sublethal toxicity tests shall be conducted on the aliquots of effluent sample collected in accordance with subsection 4(2) from the mine's final discharge point that has the greatest total monthly mass loading of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of schedule 4 as determined under subsection 20(2) of these Regulations.

(3) The sublethal toxicity tests under paragraph 1(a) shall be conducted using the following test methodologies, as amended from time to time, as applicable to each species:

(a) Biological Test Method: Test of Larval Growth and Survival Using Fathead Minnows (Report EPS 1/RM/22), February 1992, published by the Department of the Environment;

(b) Biological Test Method: Toxicity Tests Using Early Life Stages of Salmonid Fish (Rainbow Trout) (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/28), July 1998, published by the Department of the Environment;

(c) Biological Test Method: Test of Reproduction and Survival Using the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia (Report EPS 1/RM/21), February 1992, published by the Department of the Environment;

(d) Biological Test Method: Growth Inhibition Test Using Freshwater Alga Selenastrum capricornutum (Report EPS 1/RM/25) November 1992, published by the Department of the Environment;

(e) Biological Test Method: Test for Measuring the Inhibition of Growth Using the Freshwater Macrophyte, Lemna minor (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/37), March 1999, published by the Department of the Environment; and

(f) Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (Third Edition) (Reference Method EPA/600/4-91/002), July 1994, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

(4) The sublethal toxicity tests under paragraph 1(b) shall be conducted using the following test methodologies, as amended from time to time, as applicable to each species:

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

(b) Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Third Edition) (Reference Method EPA/600/4-91/003), August 1994, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and

(c) Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms (First Edition) (Reference Method EPA/600/R-95-136), August 1995, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

6. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the sublethal toxicity tests under section 5 shall be conducted two times each calendar year for three years and once each year after the third year, with the first testing to occur on an effluent sample collected not later than six months after the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations.

(2) Sublethal toxicity testing may be conducted once each calendar year, if the results of six sublethal toxicity tests conducted after December 31, 1997, on a fish species, an invertebrate species and either an aquatic plant species or an algal species are submitted to the authorization officer not later than six months after the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations.

Water Quality Monitoring

7. (1) Water quality monitoring is conducted by

(a) collecting samples of water from

(b) recording the temperature of the water and the dissolved oxygen concentration in the water in the exposure and reference areas where the samples are collected;

(c) recording the pH, hardness and alkalinity of the water samples and the concentration of the substances set out in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (g);

(d) recording the concentration of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4; and

(e) implementing quality assurance and quality control measures that will ensure the accuracy of water quality monitoring data.

(2) The water quality monitoring shall be conducted, starting not later than six months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations,

(a) once in each calendar quarter on the samples of water collected from the areas referred to in subparagraph (1)(a)(i); and

(b) at the same time that the biological monitoring studies are conducted on samples of water collected in the areas referred to in subparagraph (1)(a)(ii).

Effluent and Water Quality Monitoring Report

8. A report on the effluent and water quality monitoring studies conducted under sections 4 to 7 shall be submitted to the authorization officer not later than March 31 of each year for the previous calendar year's monitoring results, and shall include

(a) the dates on which each sample was collected for effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring;

(b) the locations of the final discharge points from which samples were collected for effluent characterization and sublethal toxicity testing;

(c) the latitude and longitude of sampling areas for water quality monitoring, in degrees, minutes and seconds, and a description that is sufficient to identify the location of the sampling areas;

(d) the results of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring;

(e) the methodologies used to conduct effluent characterization and water quality monitoring, and the related method detection limits; and

(f) a description of quality assurance and quality control measures that were implemented and any results that may interfere with the reliability of the data reported.

PART 2

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STUDIES

Required Studies

9. Biological monitoring studies consist of

(a) a site characterization;

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

(c) a study respecting fish tissue, if during effluent characterization conducted under paragraph 4(1)(d), a concentration of total mercury in the effluent is identified that is equal to or greater than .05 µg/L; and

(d) a study respecting benthic invertebrate community.

DIVISION 1

THE FIRST BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STUDIES

First Study Design

10. Prior to the conduct of the biological monitoring studies, a study design shall be submitted in accordance with section 14 that contains

(a) a site characterization that includes the information required by section 11;

(b) a description of how the study respecting the fish population will be conducted, if such a study is required under paragraph 9(b), that includes

(c) a description of how the study respecting fish tissue will be conducted, if that study is required under paragraph 9(c), that includes

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

(e) the dates and times that the samples will be collected for the biological monitoring;

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

(g) a summary of the results of any biological monitoring studies that were submitted under subparagraph 14(b)(iii).

11. A site characterization shall include the following information:

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

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

(c) the type of production process used by the mine and the environmental protection practices in place at the mine;

(d) a summary of any federal, provincial or other laws applicable to the mine in respect of effluent and environmental monitoring;

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

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

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

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

(b) the sampling areas selected;

(c) the sample size selected; and

(d) the field and laboratory methodologies selected.

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

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

(b) the sample size selected;

(c) the sampling season selected; and

(d) the field and laboratory methodologies selected.

Submission of the First Study Design

14. The first study design shall be submitted to the authorization officer not later than

(a) 12 months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations; or

(b) 24 months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations if

Conducting the First Biological Monitoring Studies

15. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the first biological monitoring studies shall start not sooner than six months after the day on which a study design is submitted under section 14, and shall be conducted in accordance with that study design.

(2) If unusual circumstances make it impossible to follow the study design, the owner or operator must inform the authorization officer without delay.

Assessment of Data Collected from Studies

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

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

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

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

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

First Interpretative Report

17. The first biological monitoring studies conducted under section 15 shall be followed by an interpretative report that contains the following information:

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

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

(c) the dates and times when samples were collected;

(d) the sample sizes;

(e) the results of the data assessment made under section 16 and any supporting raw data;

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

(g) a comparison of the results referred to in paragraph (f) and the results of the sublethal toxicity testing reported under paragraph 8(d) to determine if there is a correlation;

(h) the conclusions of the biological monitoring studies, taking into account

(i) a description of how the results will impact the study design for subsequent biological monitoring studies; and

(j) the date when the next biological monitoring study will be conducted.

18. The first interpretative report shall be submitted

(a) not later than 30 months after the date the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations, if the study design was submitted under paragraph 14(a); or

(b) not later than 42 months after the date the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations, if the study design was submitted under paragraph 14(b).

DIVISION 2

SUBSEQUENT BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STUDIES

Subsequent Study Designs

19. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the study design for a second and any subsequent biological monitoring study shall be submitted to the authorization officer at least six months before a second or subsequent biological monitoring study is conducted and shall include

(a) the information referred to in paragraphs 10(a) to (f);

(b) a summary of the results of any previous biological monitoring studies that were conducted after the coming into force of section 7 of these Regulations respecting the fish population, fish tissue analyses and the benthic invertebrate community; and

(c) if the results of the two previous biological monitoring studies indicate that there is an effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, a description of one or more additional sampling areas within the exposure area that shall be used to assess the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect.

(2) If the results of the previous biological monitoring study indicate the magnitude and geographic extent of an effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, the study design shall include the information required by paragraph 1(b) and a detailed description of what field and laboratory studies will be used to determine the cause of the effect.

Conduct of Subsequent Biological Monitoring Studies

20. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the second and any subsequent monitoring studies shall be conducted in accordance with the study design submitted under section 19.

(2) If unusual circumstances make it impossible to follow the study design, the owner or operator must inform the authorization officer without delay.

Content of Subsequent Interpretative Reports

21. The second and subsequent biological monitoring studies conducted under section 20 shall be followed by an interpretative report that contains

(a) the information referred to in paragraphs 17(a) to (j) and,

(b) if the study design that was submitted under 19(1) contains information referred to in 19(1)(c), the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect referred to in that paragraph; and

(c) if the study design was submitted under subsection 19(2), the cause of the effect referred to in that subsection.

Submission of the Subsequent Interpretative Reports

22. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the interpretative report of the second and any subsequent biological monitoring studies shall be submitted to an authorization officer not later than 36 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous biological monitoring study was required to be submitted.

(2) The interpretative report of the second and subsequently conducted biological monitoring studies shall be submitted

(a) not later than 24 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous study was required to be submitted, if the results of the previous study indicate an effect on fish populations, on fish tissue and on the benthic invertebrate community;

(b) not later than 72 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous study was required to be submitted, if the results of the previous two consecutive biological monitoring studies indicate no effect on fish populations, on fish tissue and the benthic invertebrate community; or

(c) not later than 24 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous study was required to be submitted, if the results of the previous two consecutive biological monitoring studies indicate an effect on fish populations, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, and if the magnitude or geographic extent of the effect or cause of the effect is not known.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), if an owner or operator of a mine is not required to conduct a study on the fish population or on fish tissue under paragraph 9(1)(b) or (c), the result of the study is considered to be that the effluent has no effect on the fish population or on fish tissue respectively.

DIVISION 3

FINAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STUDY PRIOR TO CLOSING MINE

Final study design

23. (1) If an owner or operator of a mine has provided to the authorization officer a notice to close a mine under subsection 31(1) of these Regulations, a study design shall be submitted to the authorization officer, not later than six months after providing the notice, and shall include

(a) the information referred to in paragraphs 10(a) to (f);

(b) a summary of the results of any previous biological monitoring studies that were conducted after the date of registration of these Regulations respecting the fish population, fish tissue and the benthic invertebrate community; and

(c) if the results of the two previous biological monitoring studies indicate that there is an effect on the fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, a description of one or more additional sampling areas within the exposure area, which additional sampling areas shall be used to assess the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect.

(2) If the results of the previous biological monitoring studies indicate the magnitude and geographic extent of an effect on fish population, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, the study design shall include the information required by paragraph 1(b), and a detailed description of what field and laboratory studies will be used to determine the cause of the effect.

Conduct of Final Biological Monitoring Studies

24. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the final monitoring studies shall be conducted in accordance with the study design submitted under section 23 not sooner than six months after the day on which the final study design has been submitted.

(2) If unusual circumstances make it impossible to follow the study design, the owner or operator must inform the authorization officer without delay.

Content of Final Interpretative Report

25. The final biological monitoring studies conducted under section 24 shall be followed by an interpretative report that contains

(a) the information referred to in paragraphs 17(a) to (h);

(b) if the study design that was submitted under subsection 23(1) contains the information referred to in paragraph 23(1)(c), the magnitude and geographic extent of the effect referred to in that paragraph; and

(c) if the study design was submitted under subsection 23(2), the cause of the effect referred to in that subsection.

Submission of the Final Interpretative Report

26. The final interpretative report shall be submitted to the authorization officer not later than 36 months after the day on which the notice to close the mine was provided under subsection 31(1) of these Regulations.

SCHEDULE 6
(Section 22)

INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT

The following information is to be submitted for each final discharge point.

Mine Name:

Mine Operator:

Address:

Telephone:

E-mail:

Location of Final Discharge Point:

Reporting Period:

Date of Report :

TABLE 1

MONTHLY MEAN CONCENTRATIONS, pH RANGE AND VOLUME OF EFFLUENT ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾

Month	As (mg/L)	Cu (mg/L)	CN (mg/L)	Pb (mg/L)	pH	Effluent Volume (m3)
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.

Month	Ni (mg/L)	Zn (mg/L)	TSS (mg/L)	Ra (Bq/L)	pH	Effluent Volume (m3)
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.

⁽¹⁾ Any measurement not taken because there was no deposit from the final discharge point shall be identified by the letters "ND" - (No Deposit).

⁽²⁾ Any measurement not taken because no measurement was required in accordance with the conditions set out in section 13 shall be identified by the letters "NMR" -
(No Measurement Required).

TABLE 2

RESULTS OF ACUTE LETHALITY TEST AND DAPHNIA MAGNA MONITORING TEST

Date Sample Collected	Effluent Acutely Lethal to Rainbow Trout (yes or no)	Effluent Acutely Lethal to Daphnia magna (yes or no)

Non-compliance Information

If effluent was non-compliant with the authorized limits set out in Schedule 4, indicate the cause(s) of non-compliance and remedial measures planned or implemented. Also indicate remedial measures planned or implemented in response to the failure of acute lethality tests.

SCHEDULE 7
(Paragraphs 33(3)(a) and (d))

PART 1

INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN AN APPLICATION FOR A TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION

1. The name, address and telephone number of the applicant.

2. The name, position title, telephone number, facsimile number and E-mail address of a contact person.

3. The name, mailing address and geographic location of the mine.

4. A general description of the mining operation with details of the parts of the operation for which the application is made.

5. A site plan showing the location of the main mining and milling facilities, the effluent treatment facilities and all the final discharge points.

6. All available pH data and data related to the monthly mean concentrations of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4 in the effluent for which the application is made for the one-year period immediately preceding the date of application.

7. The effluent flow rate at each final discharge point.

8. The available results of all acute lethality tests related to the effluent for which the application is made for the one-year period immediately preceding the date of application.

9. Plans, specifications and other information on the design and capability of the effluent treatment process in place at the mine on the date of application.

10. Based on the best available information at the time of application, a description of the facilities and procedures that are necessary to produce a non-acutely lethal effluent that complies with the authorized limits of the substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4.

11. A proposed schedule for the construction of the facilities and implementation of the procedures.

12. The details of any effluent monitoring results related to fish, fish habitat or the human use of fish that are known to the operator.

13. A signed statement indicating whether there is a law in the jurisdiction where the mine is located, and the identification of that law, that requires the mine to produce

(a) a non-acutely lethal effluent;

(b) an effluent containing a deleterious substance in a concentration that is equal to or less than the limits set out in Schedule 4 to the Regulations; or

(c) an effluent with a pH equal to or greater than 6.0 but not greater than 9.5.

14. Any further information that is required to support the application.

PART 2

STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION

I certify that the information in this application was prepared by persons with sufficient knowledge to evaluate the information. I further certify, based on a reasonable inquiry of the persons responsible for making the determination, that the information submitted is true, accurate and complete.

Date:

Signature:________________________
                    (Owner or Operator)

SCHEDULE 8
(Subsection 34(2))

PART 1

TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR ACUTELY LETHAL EFFLUENT

(Name and address of the owner and operator of the mine)

Owner:

_____________

 

_____________

 

_____________

 

_____________

 

Operator:

________________

 

 

________________

 

 

________________

 

 

________________

(Name and address of the mine)

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

is hereby authorized as of (date)

__________

to deposit

acutely lethal effluent until (date)

__________

for

effluent from (identify final discharge point)

__________

.

IMPORTANT:

Please refer to sections 6 to 26 and subsection 27(1) of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) for conditions governing the authority to deposit. In addition, please note that this authorization may be revoked under section 37 of these Regulations.

Authorization Officer:

(Signature):

__________________________

(Name):

__________________________

(Title):

__________________________

(Date):

__________________________

PART 2

TRANSITIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES

(Name and address of the owner and operator of the mine)

Owner:

______________

 

 

______________

 

 

______________

 

 

______________

 

Operator:

________________

 

________________

 

________________

 

________________

(Name and address of the mine)

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

is hereby authorized as of (date)

__________

to deposit

the deleterious substances
specified below until (date)

__________

for

effluent from (identify final discharge point)

__________

.

Deleterious Substance	Maximum Authorized Monthly Mean Concentration1	Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Composite Sample2	Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Grab Sample3
Arsenic
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Radium 226
Total Suspended Solids

Authorized Effluent pH Range⁴:

IMPORTANT:

Please refer to sections 6 to 26 and subsection 27(1) of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations for conditions governing the authority to deposit. In addition, please note that this authorization may be revoked under section 37 of these Regulations.

Authorization Officer:

(Signature):

___________________________

(Name):

___________________________

(Title):

___________________________

(Date):

___________________________

¹ The maximum monthly mean concentration of the deleterious substance in effluent is the greater of the maximum monthly mean concentration of the substance recorded during the 12-month period preceding the date of the application for the transitional authorization or the authorized monthly mean concentration set out in column 2 of Schedule 4.

² The maximum authorized concentration of the deleterious substance in each composite sample collected is equal to 1.5 times the maximum authorized monthly mean concentration.

³ The maximum authorized concentration of the deleterious substance in each grab sample collected is equal to 2.0 times the maximum authorized monthly mean concentration.

⁴ The lower limit of the authorized pH range is equal to the lowest pH recorded during the 12-month period preceding the date of the application for the transitional authorization or 6.0, whichever is less. The upper limit of the authorized pH range is equal to the highest pH recorded during the 12-month period preceding the date of the application or 9.5, whichever is greater.

[30-1-o]

Footnote 1

SENES Consultants Limited & Lakefield Research Limited, Estimated Incremental Costs to Meet Environmental Canada's Proposed Changes to the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations, Richmond Hill, Ontario, October 1999, pages 11 to 19.

Footnote 2

SENES Consultants Limited & Lakefield Research Limited, Estimated Incremental Costs to Meet Environmental Canada's Proposed Changes to the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations, Richmond Hill, Ontario, October 1999, pages 17 to 19.

Footnote 3

Environment Canada, The Importance of Nature to Canadians: Survey Highlights, Ottawa, 1999.

Footnote 4

Environment Canada, Assessment of the Aquatic Effects of Mining in Canada: AQUAMIN — Final Report, AQUAMIN Steering Group, April 30, 1996, pages 49 and 50.

Footnote 5

AQUAMIN — Final Report, pages xxiv and 47.

Footnote 6

SOR/79-345

Footnote 7

C.R.C., c. 819

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).