FEDERAL REG

Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations

PROPOSED FEDERAL REGULATION - VIA PART I OF THE GAZETTE

Proposed
May 13, 2017


REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT (This statement is not part of the Regulations.) Executive summary Issues: Since 2002, the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (the MMER) have delivered significant improvements in metal mine effluent management across Canada. Assessments of effluent data indicate, however, that there are continued risks to fish and fish habitat in the vicinity of some mines. Co... (Click for more)


Published on May 20, 2017

Bill Summary

Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT (This statement is not part of the Regulations.) Executive summary Issues: Since 2002, the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (the MMER) have delivered significant improvements in metal mine effluent management across Canada. Assessments of effluent data indicate, however, that there are continued risks to fish and fish habitat in the vicinity of some mines. Concerns have also been raised regarding the value of certain monitoring activities undertaken by mines and a lack of regulatory clarity for diamond mines (which currently do not fall within the scope of the MMER). Description: The proposed Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (the proposed Amendments) would strengthen effluent quality standards, improve the efficiency of environmental effects monitoring (EEM) without compromising environmental protection, and make diamond mines subject to the MMER. The proposed Amendments would also change the long title of the MMER to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations and would include changes to clarify the existing text. Cost-benefit statement: The proposed Amendments would reduce risks to fish and fish habitat, improve government oversight of metal and diamond mine effluent in Canada, and incorporate diamond mines into the MMER. The proposed Amendments would generate incremental costs of $35 million to industry and the Government and cost savings of $9.5 million to the metal mining sector, for a net incremental cost of $25.5 million for industry and the Government over the 2018 to 2027 time frame of analysis. “One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The proposed Amendments are considered an “IN” under the Government of Canada’s “One-for-One” Rule. For both metal and diamond mines, the net increase in annualized administrative costs would be approximately $5,800, or $40 per mine. (see footnote 1), (see footnote 2) The small business lens would not apply to the proposed Amendments. Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: The MMER establish minimum national baseline mining effluent standards. The proposed Amendments aim to improve these standards and align them with provincial and territorial standards where possible. The proposed Amendments would establish a clear and certain regulatory framework for diamond mines by making them subject to the MMER. The proposed Amendments would not have an impact on any international agreement, obligation, or voluntary standard. Background Mining operations produce waste (e.g. effluent, tailings, waste rock) that can contain harmful or “deleterious” substances. The Fisheries Act, under subsection 36(3), prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances in water frequented by fish (known as the “general prohibition”) unless authorized by a regulation, such as the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (the MMER). The MMER authorize the release of certain deleterious substances from metal mines into fish-frequented waters, provided that the concentration of these substances does not exceed the limits prescribed in Schedule 4 and the effluent is not acutely lethal to fish. (see footnote 3) The MMER also include provisions for the authorization of mine waste disposal in fish-frequented waters for the purposes of a mine waste disposal area. (see footnote 4) This authorization requires that these water bodies be added, by the Governor in Council, to Schedule 2 of the MMER. Also prescribed are performance measurement and evaluation requirements for environmental effects monitoring (EEM), which include effluent and receiving water quality monitoring and biological monitoring studies (e.g. fish population studies, benthic invertebrate community studies). There are currently approximately 130 metal mines in Canada subject to the MMER, and 24 bodies of water were listed on Schedule 2 as of April 1, 2017. (see footnote 5) In addition to these federal protections, provinces and territories have instruments that regulate mining activities, and these provincial measures may include provisions relating to mining effluent. The MMER were introduced in 2002 to reduce the concentrations of deleterious substances being released into Canadian waters and to ensure that metal mining effluent is not acutely lethal to fish. Since 2002, reported results have shown that the vast majority (over 95%) of effluent from the metal mining sector is not acutely lethal to fish and that the sector has maintained over 95% compliance with Schedule 4 limits. While metal mining effluent is not acutely lethal, national assessments of EEM data from metal mines have shown that sublethal effects are being seen around some mines. The Third National Assessment (see footnote 6) reported that approximately 48% of metal mines have confirmed (see footnote 7) the presence of sublethal effects (see footnote 8) on fish and fish habitat between 2002 and 2013. This assessment also indicates that effluent has affected the survival, growth, reproduction, liver size and body conditions (see footnote 9) of fish. These effects are generally attributed to the collective impact of substances in effluent discharge. The Canadian diamond mining sector has grown from one mine in 2002, when the MMER came into effect, to six mines today. Diamond mining generates effluent that can contain deleterious substances, and this effluent must either be stored or treated and released, given that diamond mines are subject to the general prohibition under the Fisheries Act. However, diamond mines face uncertainty because of a lack of clarity related to compliance with the general prohibition, even though they are in compliance with requirements established by the provinces and territories. Issues Since 2002, the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (the MMER) have delivered significant improvements in metal mine effluent management across Canada. Assessments of effluent data indicate, however, that there are continued risks to fish and fish habitat in the vicinity of some mines. Concerns have also been raised regarding the value of certain monitoring activities by mines and a lack of regulatory clarity for diamond mines (which currently do not fall within the scope of the MMER). Objectives The objectives of the proposed Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (the proposed Amendments) are to reduce the risks of the negative effects of mines on fish and fish habitat, improve the efficiency of certain performance measurement and evaluation requirements, and provide regulatory clarity regarding releases of effluent to fish-frequented water bodies for diamond mines. Description The proposed Amendments would strengthen effluent quality standards with the goal of reducing risks to fish and fish habitat. Adjustments would be made to performance measurement and evaluation requirements that would improve the efficiency of EEM, without compromising environmental protection, and diamond mines would be made subject to the MMER. The proposed Amendments would also include changes that would clarify the existing text, and the title of the MMER would be changed to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations. The majority of the proposed Amendments would come into force on the day on which they are registered, which is expected to take place in 2018. The proposed concentration limits for deleterious substances and the requirement that effluent not be acutely lethal to Daphnia magna would come into force three years after the date of registration, in 2021. Proposed authorized limits of deleterious substances Beginning in 2021, for mines that would become subject to the MMER three years after the proposed Amendments are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, or for recognized closed mines that reopen after this date, the proposed Amendments would impose more stringent limits for arsenic, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, and zinc, as well as introduce limits for un-ionized ammonia. For all other mines, the proposed Amendments would impose more stringent limits for arsenic, cyanide, and lead, as well as add limits for un-ionized ammonia. Non-acute lethality requirements Beginning in 2021, the proposed Amendments would require that mine effluent not be acutely lethal to Daphnia magna for mines to maintain their authority to deposit. Daphnia magna is a small aquatic crustacean that is a food source for many fish and that is sensitive to different substances than rainbow trout, which is already used to determine acute lethality in the MMER. An effluent would be considered acutely lethal to Daphnia magna if the effluent at 100% concentration kills more than 50% of the Daphnia magna subjected to the effluent over a 48-hour period. The proposed Amendments provide flexibility, so that a first acute lethality failure for Daphnia magna would not result in a loss of the authority to deposit, while subsequent failures would. The proposed Amendments would also allow for the use of a marine species, the threespine stickleback, to test for acute lethality as an alternative to rainbow trout when saline effluent is being released into saline environments. Mines that meet this scenario would not be required to test for Daphnia magna. The proposed Amendments would specify a test method pertaining to the threespine stickleback. Environmental effects monitoring requirements Beginning in 2018, several amendments are proposed to improve the efficiency of the environmental effects monitoring (EEM) performance measurement and evaluation requirements, without compromising environmental protection. The proposed Amendments would strengthen the MMER’s performance measurement and evaluation requirements by adding a fish tissue study for selenium, as well as new substances to be monitored (i.e. chloride, chromium, cobalt, sulphate, thallium, uranium, phosphorus, and manganese). The proposed Amendments would also focus sublethal toxicity testing on the most sensitive test species, while increasing testing frequency for improved data. In addition, the proposed Amendments would focus biological monitoring studies on aquatic communities facing situations of higher risk for environmental effects. The mercury in fish tissue threshold would also be amended to reduce the number of studies required in situations with low risk of effect on fish tissue. The proposed Amendments would add conditions allowing mines with effluent presenting lower risks of having effects on fish and fish habitat to be exempt from some biological monitoring requirements. The proposed Amendments would also remove the current requirement for mines to conduct magnitude and geographic extent studies, which would allow mines to progress more quickly to determine the cause of their confirmed effects on fish and fish habitat. Expansion of the scope of the MMER to diamond mines Beginning in 2018, the proposed Amendments would expand the MMER to cover the diamond mining industry. All of the provisions applicable to metal mines would also apply to diamond mines, including provisions that allow for the use of fish-frequented waters for mine waste disposal areas (i.e. Schedule 2). Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered Environment and Climate Change Canada (the Department or ECCC) currently regulates effluent discharges from metal mines under the MMER, and considered maintaining this regulatory status quo or updating the regulatory requirements as in the proposed Amendments. Status quo approach The status quo approach would maintain the current MMER. The Department would miss an opportunity to tighten effluent concentration limits, and improve the monitoring and management of metal and diamond mining effluent that is discharged into fish-frequented waters. Diamond mines would face continued regulatory uncertainty vis-à-vis effluent discharged to fish-frequented waters while subject to a mix of provincial and territorial permits. Regulatory approach under the Fisheries Act A non-regulatory approach would not be feasible, as the Fisheries Act does not allow for non-regulatory instruments to authorize the deposit of deleterious substances. The proposed Amendments would build on the existing regulatory approach, which sets national minimum standards for effluent quality for metal mines while providing a science-based method for assessing effects on fish and fish habitat through the collection of EEM data. Adherence to more stringent limits for deleterious substances is expected to result in reduced concentrations of deleterious substances discharged to surface waters in Canada. The proposed Amendments would also provide diamond mines with regulatory clarity and provisions for mine waste disposal areas in fish-frequented waters. As a result, a regulatory approach under the Fisheries Act was taken by the Department. Benefits and costs Compliance with the proposed effluent limits would reduce the amount of harmful substances entering receiving waters from mines. It is anticipated that this would have positive impacts for fish and fish habitat. Improved EEM data collection would strengthen government oversight of effluent quality. There would be new costs for diamond mines, which would be subject to the proposed Amendments, and additional costs to the metal mining sector attributed to the proposed Amendments. However, it is expected that the proposed EEM requirements would generate cost savings (benefits) for the metal mining sector and would focus monitoring efforts on situations of higher risk of environmental threats to fish and fish habitat. The costs and benefits of the proposed Amendments have been assessed in accordance with the Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide published by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS). (see footnote 10) The expected impacts of the proposed Amendments are presented in the logic model (Figure 1) below: Figure 1: Logic model for the analysis of the proposed Amendments The expected impacts of the proposed amendments are presented in this logic model. Compliance with the proposed Amendments → Reduction in concentration of deleterious substances released → Improved effluent quality → Reduced risk to fish and fish habitat Compliance with the proposed Amendments → Reduced acute lethality of effluent → Improved effluent quality → Reduced risk to fish and fish habitat Compliance with the proposed Amendments → Improved efficiency of EEM requirements → Improved data collection → Improved knowledge Compliance with the proposed Amendments → Improved efficiency of EEM requirements Compliance with the proposed Amendments → Improved efficiency of EEM requirements → EEM compliance and administrative cost savings (for metal mines) → Industry savings Compliance with the proposed Amendments → → → Compliance and administrative costs (for metal and diamond mines) → Industry and Government costs Compliance with the proposed Amendments → → → Government administrative costs → Industry and Government costs The analysis of the incremental benefits and costs was conducted using base case and regulatory scenarios. For metal mines, the base case scenario assumes a status quo in which mines are compliant with the current MMER, while the regulatory scenario assumes that mines are compliant with the proposed Amendments. For diamond mines, the base case scenario assumes a status quo in which mines are subject to the general prohibition of the Fisheries Act, and to provincial or territorial requirements, while the regulatory scenario assumes that mines are compliant with the proposed Amendments. The proposed Amendments would be phased in, with some changes expected to come into force in 2018 and the remainder in 2021. The analytical time frame begins in the first year of regulatory implementation, 2018, and runs through to 2027. The Department considers the 10-year time frame to be sufficient for analyzing the impacts of the proposed Amendments. It is expected that 25 metal mines would be required to make changes to their treatment methods to comply with the more stringent concentration limits on deleterious substances (i.e. arsenic, cyanide, and un-ionized ammonia) and Daphnia magna requirements. Consequently, environmental benefits are expected to be generated from these mines. For the remaining mines, historic data indicate that they would be able to meet the proposed provisions for all deleterious substances and Daphnia magna without making changes to their current treatments. While there are no expected environmental benefits resulting from these remaining mines, the proposed provisions establish a more stringent national baseline for continued improvement across the mining sector. The environmental benefits of the proposed Amendments could not be easily quantified due to the site-by-site level of information required to model the impacts and the Departmental capacity needed to conduct such assessments. However, these environmental benefits exist, and have been assessed qualitatively. Costs and cost savings are quantified and monetized in 2016 Canadian dollars. The analysis includes growth rates for metal and diamond mines in Canada, based on historical trends. Metal mines are forecast to grow at an annual rate of 3%, while diamond mines are forecast to grow at an annual rate of 5%. It is estimated that in 2018 there would be 141 metal and 6 diamond mines, and by 2027 there would be 184 metal and 9 diamond mines. Industry compliance costs The metal and diamond mining sectors are expected to assume incremental compliance and administrative costs in order to comply with the proposed Amendments. Increased costs to Government are also expected. Cost of incorporating diamond mines into the MMER Beginning in 2018, the proposed Amendments would expand the MMER to include the diamond mining sector. It is expected that only one of the six diamond mines would assume incremental capital costs in order to construct a dam or a weir to become compliant with the proposed Amendments. The incremental cost associated with this requirement was estimated using the AMDTreat software. (see footnote 11) The incremental capital cost of incorporating this diamond mine into the MMER is estimated to be $2.1 million. Costs to comply with more stringent limits for deleterious substances Incremental compliance costs to metal mines from the proposed modifications to arsenic, cyanide, and un-ionized ammonia effluent limits would begin in 2018. There are no expected incremental costs to diamond mines from this requirement because these mines are already able to meet the proposed limits in Schedule 4. It was also assumed that future mines would adopt the best technology available to treat effluent under the base case scenario, and would therefore not assume any incremental costs from the more stringent limits for the remaining substances that would apply to mines that become subject to the proposed Amendments after 2021. (see footnote 12), (see footnote 13) The Department used historical data between 2012 and 2014 to identify mines that would likely need to modify their effluent treatment in order to comply with the proposed limits for deleterious substances. (see footnote 14) Based on these data, it is estimated that eight metal mines would be affected by the proposed effluent limits for arsenic, cyanide, and un-ionized ammonia. It is not expected that any metal mines would be affected by the more stringent limit for lead. Treatment technologies for effluent vary depending on the substance being targeted for removal. Some affected mines would be able to achieve compliance by optimizing existing effluent treatment systems (such as adding acid to reduce the pH of effluent), while some affected mines would be able to achieve compliance by optimizing existing treatments or by installing add-on treatments (such as enhancing instrumentation/process controls). The measures required for mines to achieve compliance have been estimated based on existing effluent treatment systems and other site-specific factors. (see footnote 15) The installation or optimization of treatment systems would need to be completed within a three-year transition period between 2018 and 2021. Operating and maintenance costs would be ongoing beginning in 2021. Compliance by affected mines is estimated to require annual capital costs of $6,671,636 (between 2018 and 2021) and annual operating costs of about $1,452,903 (between 2021 and 2027) from optimizing existing treatments or installing add-on treatments. Over the time frame of analysis, affected metal mines would assume capital costs of $18.9 million and operating and maintenance costs of $8.2 million. The total cost (capital plus operating) across the eight affected mines resulting from the proposed limits for deleterious substances would be approximately $27.2 million between 2018 and 2027. (see footnote 16) Cost of testing effluent for concentrations of deleterious substances There would be incremental costs to both sectors from effluent testing for the concentration of deleterious substances. These costs would begin in 2021 and are attributable to increased laboratory testing and analysis costs, including the shipping of samples to laboratories. (see footnote 17) For metal mines, incremental costs would arise from the addition of the requirement to test for un-ionized ammonia. All forecasted metal mines would be required to test for un-ionized ammonia; however, there would be no incremental costs for mines in Saskatchewan since they are already required to test for un-ionized ammonia under existing provincial requirements. Due to varying testing requirements in site-specific provincial and territorial permits, all forecasted diamond mines would need to begin testing for some deleterious substances for which they do not currently have testing requirements, which would result in incremental costs. Costs were estimated based on the incremental number of additional tests for each substance. The estimated costs per sample for each substance are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: Cost per sample for the proposed Schedule 4 substances This table presents cost per sample for the proposed Schedule 4 substances Type of substance Cost per Sample Un-ionized ammonia $15 Metals $54 Radium 266 $152 Suspended solids $12 Incremental costs for effluent testing for affected metal mines would be $500,824, and $87,288 for affected diamond mines over the time frame of analysis. The total incremental cost from testing deleterious substances is estimated at $588,112 between 2018 and 2027. (see footnote 18) Costs to comply with proposed changes to the non-acute lethality requirement In 2021, the proposed Amendments would require that mines ensure that effluent is not acutely lethal to Daphnia magna. Based on data collected by the Department between 2011 and 2014, approximately 19 mines are expected to carry incremental costs to comply with the proposed Daphnia magna non-acute lethality requirement (most mines are already expected to conform with this requirement). It is assumed that future metal mines would, under base case and regulatory scenarios, implement effluent treatment systems that would enable them to achieve compliance with the proposed non-acute lethality requirement. (see footnote 19) All diamond mines are required under their provincial/territorial permits to monitor for effluent acute lethality for both rainbow trout and Daphnia magna, but at different frequencies than would be required under the proposed Amendments. Therefore, all forecasted diamond mines would carry incremental costs due to testing for acute lethality at the frequency required in the proposed Amendments. Estimated costs for the metal and diamond mining sectors are based on the following costs per test, shown in Table 2 below. (see footnote 20) Mines that fail acute lethality testing would be required to conduct additional testing. Table 2: Cost per test used for the proposed non-acute lethality requirement This table presents costs per test used for the proposed non-acute lethality requirement Test type Cost per Test Daphnia magna acute lethality $156 Effluent characterization test $102 Deleterious substances sampling and recording $21 Rainbow trout acute lethality $198 Based on information provided by stakeholders during consultations, it is assumed for metal mines that the number of Daphnia magna acute lethality test failures would be reduced by 30% each year after the coming-into-force of the proposed requirement. The costs associated with shipping and testing are estimated at $98,930 over the time frame of analysis for the metal mining sector. The costs to the diamond mining sector are expected to be approximately $100,225. The total cost for the proposed Daphnia magna non-acute lethality requirement for metal and diamond mines is estimated at $199,155. Environmental effects monitoring costs The costs of the proposed changes to the EEM requirements are outlined in the following subsections. Incremental costs include the addition of a fish tissue study for selenium (SeFT), the amendment of sublethal toxicity testing requirements, and additional water quality monitoring. Cost for enhanced selenium in fish tissue monitoring In 2018, the proposed Amendments would enhance selenium monitoring by adding SeFT studies for mines where the effluent selenium concentrations exceed the proposed threshold. Incremental costs would be attributed to conducting an SeFT study, which includes both a design cost and a testing cost. Based on departmental monitoring data showing selenium concentrations from 2012 to 2014, affected metal mines have been identified as likely to exceed the proposed SeFT threshold. Based on this data, it is expected that approximately 10% of forecasted metal mines would assume costs associated with conducting SeFT tests (which includes a cost for laboratory testing and analysis as well as the shipping of samples to laboratories). It is assumed that if affected mines currently conduct fish population studies, they would not assume costs to prepare an SeFT study design, as these mines would already have an existing study design and would be able to conduct the fish population and SeFT studies in conjunction. Therefore, approximately 1% of forecasted metal mines would assume SeFT design costs (this includes costs for production of study designs and field work). Diamond mines are not expected to carry incremental costs, as selenium concentrations in effluent are already anticipated to be less than the proposed threshold for the fish tissue study. (see footnote 21) The annual cost per SeFT test is estimated at $2,320 and the annual cost per SeFT design is estimated at $10,991. Over the analytical time frame, the incremental cost to the metal mining sector from the proposed SeFT study requirement would be approximately $578,394. Cost from amending sublethal toxicity testing requirements In 2018, the proposed Amendments would streamline the requirements for sublethal toxicity (SLT) testing by incorporating a tiered approach to identify the most sensitive test species per mine and, once identified, to do the test more frequently than is currently required. The proposed Amendments would also remove the requirement to report one of the SLT test results. All metal and diamond mines would be affected by the proposed tiered approach. Metal mines would have different incremental costs depending on the test species determined to be most sensitive, since each test has different associated costs. The most sensitive test species were estimated for each metal mine based on previous SLT results submitted to the Department and are indicated in Table 3 below. Incremental costs were calculated using these percentages. Diamond mines currently conduct SLT testing under provincial and territorial permits, but not for all of the species required under the MMER. All diamond mines would be required to add at least one SLT test species (either fathead minnow, or Lemna minor, or both) in order to determine their most sensitive test species. Table 3: Proportion of affected metal mines and cost per SLT test This table presents the proportion of affected metal mines and cost per SLT test SLT test Annual Cost per Test (see footnote 22), (see footnote 23) Percentage of Affected Metal Mines Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata $707 7% Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction and survival test $1,347 44% Fathead Minnow growth and survival test $1,449 1% Growth inhibition test using Lemna minor $1,081 48% Note: The annual cost per test was used to estimate costs for both metal and diamond mines. The incremental costs from the proposed changes to SLT testing are estimated to be $149,849 and $126,245 for metal and diamond mines, respectively. The total incremental cost for both sectors would be $276,095 over the time frame of analysis. Cost of increased water quality monitoring for diamond mines The proposed inclusion of diamond mines would result in incremental costs to these mines from water quality monitoring for specified deleterious substances, as current territorial permits require water quality testing at a lower frequency than that required by the MMER. These costs would begin in 2018 and are attributable to increased laboratory testing and analysis costs, including the shipping of samples to laboratories. The estimated costs per sample were based on the figures shown in Table 1 above. Incremental costs of water quality monitoring to the diamond mining sector would be $2,320 over the time frame of analysis (not shown in Table 4 below). (see footnote 24) Summary of EEM costs The proposed modifications to EEM would result in incremental costs of $0.7 million to the metal mining sector and $0.1 million to the diamond mining sector over the 2018 to 2027 period. Total incremental costs due to the proposed EEM requirements would be $0.9 million over the time frame of analysis (Table 4). Table 4: EEM costs by proposed amendment (millions of dollars) This table presents EEM costs by proposed Amendment (millions of dollars) Proposed amendment 2018 to 2020 2021 to 2027 Total Addition of SeFT studies 0.2 0.4 0.6 Amendment to SLT requirement 0.1 0.2 0.3 Total 0.2 0.6 0.9 Note: Monetary values are discounted to present value using a 3% discount rate. Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. Summary of industry compliance costs Incremental costs to industry, with respect to compliance, are expected to be $30.9 million between 2018 and 2027. Industry compliance costs to the metal and diamond mining sectors are shown in Table 5 below by proposed standard. Table 5: Industry compliance costs by proposed standard (millions of dollars) This table presents Industry compliance costs by proposed standard (millions of dollars). Proposed amendment 2018 to 2020 2021 to 2027 Total Incorporating diamond mines 2.1 0.0 2.1 More stringent effluent limits 18.9 8.3 27.2 Increased effluent testing 0.0 0.6 0.6 Non-acute lethality requirements 0.0 0.2 0.2 EEM EEM EEM EEM Addition of SeFT studies 0.2 0.4 0.6 Amendment to SLT testing requirement 0.1 0.2 0.3 Total EEM 0.2 0.6 0.9 Total 21.2 9.7 30.9 Note: Monetary values are discounted to present value using a 3% discount rate. Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. Incremental costs over the 2018 to 2020 period are higher due to one-time capital expenses that would be carried by metal mines for the proposed Schedule 4 effluent limits and to the incorporation of diamond mines into the MMER. The remaining costs are due to ongoing operating expenses that would be carried by both sectors due to the proposed Amendments. Industry and government administrative costs and cost savings The proposed Amendments are expected to result in a net increase in administrative costs to industry of $77,094 between 2018 and 2027. The metal mining sector is expected to have net cost savings of $61,767 (e.g. reduced reporting for EEM requirements yet increased reporting for selenium in fish tissue). An incremental increase in costs of $138,861 is expected for the diamond mining sector to comply with the reporting requirements of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (e.g. familiarization with the new regulations, submission of monitoring and final discharge point data). This sector is currently not subject to the reporting requirements under the MMER. Government administrative costs attributed to compliance promotion and enforcement activities are estimated to increase by $50,338 and $1.8 million, respectively. In addition, incremental program administrative costs are expected to be $2.0 million. Overall, incremental government administrative costs are expected to be $3.8 million for the 2018 to 2027 period. Industry compliance cost savings from the proposed EEM requirements The metal mining sector is expected to benefit from cost savings from some of the proposed Amendments due to improved EEM requirements. Incremental cost savings attributable to EEM would begin in 2018 and are discussed in the following subsections. Given that diamond mines are not currently subject to the MMER, they would not benefit from incremental savings created by more efficient processes. Furthermore, these mines would face some incremental new compliance costs as a result of being subject to the proposed MMER. Unless otherwise indicated, information and results from the Third Metal Mining National Assessment were used to estimate the percentage of metal mines that would be affected by the proposed EEM requirements. (see footnote 25) Cost estimates were sourced primarily from an EEM cost estimate report or from surveys, both produced by the Department in 1999 (the amounts were adjusted to 2016 dollars). Cost savings from incorporating critical effect sizes and decoupling studies The proposed Amendments would optimize biological monitoring studies by changing the threshold at which mines are required to investigate the cause of effects and by decoupling benthic invertebrate community (BIC) and fish population studies so that they are conducted separately. This proposed change is expected to enable approximately 9% of forecasted metal mines, those that have demonstrated no confirmed effects on BICs, to reduce the amount of BIC studies they perform. Based on the annual cost of a BIC study of $11,759, it is estimated that the proposed change would generate cost savings of approximately $1.4 million between 2018 and 2027 for the metal mining sector. Cost savings from benthic invertebrate community study exemption All metal mines are currently required to conduct BIC studies, regardless of the concentration of their effluent in the receiving environment. The proposed Amendments would add an effluent concentration threshold for the receiving environment that would exempt some mines from conducting BIC studies. Similar to the existing threshold for fish population studies, this proposal would focus efforts on situations of higher risk for impacts on the receiving environment. It is estimated that approximately 5% of forecasted metal mines would be affected by this proposed exemption, based on existing data for the number of mines affected by the fish population study threshold. Based on an annual cost of a BIC study of $11,759, the cost savings associated with the proposed BIC study exemption would be about $747,050 between 2018 and 2027 for the metal mining sector. Cost savings from exempting non-discharging mines from conducting biological monitoring All metal mines are currently required to conduct biological monitoring studies under the EEM requirements. The proposed Amendments would remove the requirement to conduct biological monitoring studies for mines that do not discharge effluent for at least 36 months. This proposal would reflect decreased risks of effects on receiving environments from mines that are not discharging over the long term. Based on the current share of non-discharging metal mines, it is expected that about 3% of forecasted metal mines would be affected per year. The cost of a joint fish population and BIC study is approximately $32,614 per year while water quality monitoring is approximately $7,081 per year. The cost savings attributed to the proposed exemption from biological monitoring for non-discharging mines would be approximately $1.7 million from 2018 to 2027 for the metal mining sector. Cost savings from removing the requirement to conduct magnitude and geographic extent studies The proposed Amendments would remove the requirement for mines to conduct magnitude and geographic extent (M&E) of the effect studies for BIC and fish population components, which is an additional three-year study. The M&E study slows down the EEM process and delays the identification of the cause(s) of confirmed effects. This proposal would enable mines to move more quickly to the determination of the cause of confirmed effects, without compromising the information collected. It is assumed that the number of affected metal mines would be the same as the proportion of mines that previously conducted fish population or BIC M&E studies based on historical trends. Given this assumption, it is estimated that 67% and 70% of forecasted metal mines would be affected by the removal of the requirement to conduct a fish population M&E study and a BIC M&E study, respectively. The cost per year for a fish population M&E study is estimated at $31,281 and the cost per year for a BIC M&E study is estimated at $17,638. The cost savings attributed to the proposed removal of M&E studies would be approximately $5.2 million between 2018 and 2027 for the metal mining sector. Cost savings from amending the mercury in fish tissue threshold Metal mines are currently required to conduct a mercury in fish tissue study if any single concentration of mercury in their effluent is found to be greater than the prescribed threshold. The proposed Amendments would adjust the mercury in fish tissue threshold to an annual average of effluent mercury concentrations, to focus efforts on situations of higher risk for impacts on the receiving environment. Many mines that meet the current threshold are finding no effects from their mercury in fish tissue studies, indicating that the threshold is too sensitive. Some metal mines that currently conduct fish tissue studies would not be required to conduct fish tissue studies due to the proposed adjustment to the mercury in fish tissue. (see footnote 26), (see footnote 27) Therefore, about 5% of forecasted metal mines would be affected. The cost of a fish tissue study is approximately $3,664 per year. Based on the cost of the fish tissue study, it is expected that the proposed adjustment to the mercury in fish tissue threshold would result in cost savings of approximately $237,734 to the metal mining industry between 2018 and 2027. Summary of industry cost savings Some of the proposed Amendments to the EEM requirements would result in cost savings of about $9.3 million for the metal mining sector. The diamond mining sector would not have any cost savings. Cost savings attributed to the proposed EEM requirements are shown in Table 6 below. Table 6: EEM cost savings by proposed amendment (millions of dollars) This table presents the EEM cost savings by proposed Amendment (millions of dollars). Proposed Amendment 2018 to 2020 2021 to 2027 Total Inclusion of critical effect sizes and decoupling 0.4 1.0 1.4 BIC 1% dilution exemption 0.2 0.5 0.7 Removal of biological monitoring for non-discharging mines 0.5 1.2 1.7 Removal of M&E study requirement 1.7 3.5 5.2 Adjustment to mercury in fish tissue threshold 0.1 0.2 0.2 Total cost savings 3.0 6.4 9.3 Note: Monetary values are discounted to present value using a 3% discount rate. Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. Environmental and societal benefits The proposed effluent quality standards are expected to yield incremental environmental benefits, while the proposed EEM requirements are expected to contribute to data collected by the Department, which would strengthen government oversight of effluent quality. Analytical framework for environmental benefits analysis There are expected to be incremental environmental benefits resulting from more stringent concentration limits for arsenic, cyanide, and un-ionized ammonia; non-acute lethality requirements for Daphnia magna; and a reduced number of fish and benthic organisms required to be killed for EEM purposes. Reduced deleterious substances (e.g. arsenic, cyanide, and un-ionized ammonia) in mining effluent are expected to increase the quality and/or quantity of natural assets. (see footnote 28) There are many benefits to Canadian society associated with the protection of a natural asset. These benefits are called ecological goods and services (EG&S), and are often assessed in a regulatory analysis using a total economic value (TEV) framework, which represents the range of all potential economic values to society derived from a natural asset. The TEV framework includes direct and indirect use values (e.g. fish, flood control), option value (i.e. the value of retaining the option of possible future uses associated with the asset), and non-use values (i.e. the value of knowing the asset exists). The TEV framework, as well as standard approaches to economic valuation of EG&S, has been recognized and accepted by the Supreme Court (British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2004). (see footnote 29) Figure 2 illustrates the effect pathway to assess the incremental benefits of the regulatory scenario as compared to the base case scenario (see footnote 30) from a societal perspective. Due to the absence of comprehensive site-specific biophysical data on the extent to which the proposed Amendments would improve natural assets, natural assets and EG&S were described qualitatively. The benefits analysis is organized according to the effect pathway. First, affected receiving waters were identified to determine the area of analysis. Next, natural assets in the area of analysis were identified, and biophysical changes to these assets that would be expected from the proposed Amendments were qualitatively described. Finally, the primary EG&S flowing from these natural assets were identified and described. Economic values from literature were provided as an example to illustrate the potential economic value society would derive from improvements to these EG&S. Figure 2: Effect pathway for the proposed Amendments (see footnote 31) This table presents the effect pathway for the proposed amendments. Proposed Amendments → Identification of affected receiving waters → Identification of changes to natural assets → Identification of changes to EG&S → Identification of economic values of changes to EG&S Identification of affected receiving waters Waters that receive metal mining effluent and that then travel downstream are referred throughout this analysis as “receiving waters.” Based on historical performance, there are 25 affected mines that would be required to make incremental investments or changes in order to comply with two of the proposed Amendments: more stringent limits for deleterious substances and non-acute lethality to Daphnia magna. Compliance of these 25 affected mines with the proposed Amendments is expected to result in improvements to corresponding receiving waters, and to associated natural assets and ecological goods and services (EG&S). The benefits analysis uses a subset of 11 of the affected mines as an example of the expected natural assets and EG&S. There could be similar incremental improvements at the remaining affected mines, but this would depend on their site-specific natural assets and EG&S. Based on departmental analysis, incremental benefits are not expected for receiving waters at diamond mines because these mines are expected to be discharging at or below the proposed Schedule 4 effluent limits and are expected to be non-acutely lethal to Daphnia magna and rainbow trout. (see footnote 32) Identification of expected affected natural assets Deleterious substances in mining effluent that are discharged to surface waters can impact natural assets, as these substances cascade through aquatic and wetland ecosystems. Accumulation of deleterious substances (e.g. arsenic) in water and/or sediment can travel along the food chain through primary producers (algae, phytoplankton, or submerged and emergent plants), which are then consumed by primary consumers (benthic, water-column invertebrates, or other herbivores), which are then consumed by secondary consumers (fish, birds, mammals), and then finally tertiary consumers (humans, other carnivores). Alternatively, deleterious substances can be ingested directly from water or sediment by animals and humans. Natural assets within and connected to the receiving waters at the subset of 11 affected mines have been identified to the extent possible given the data and capacity currently available for analysis. These natural assets are expected to deliver incremental benefits due to mines complying with the proposed Amendments. Surface water and groundwater quality It is expected that the proposed Amendments would reduce the concentration of deleterious substances in receiving waters at affected mines. Particularly, receiving waters at four affected mines would be improved from reduced concentrations of arsenic, which is an accumulating substance in organisms. While the MMER do not regulate the quantity of effluent released by metal mines, a reduction in the concentration of deleterious substances is expected to lead to a corresponding reduction in overall loading of deleterious substances in mines’ receiving waters. Given the interconnectedness of surface and groundwater, receiving waters with reduced concentrations of deleterious substances are expected to transfer to and reduce deleterious substances in groundwater. Aquatic species Three national assessments of EEM data report that the deposit of effluent from metal mines into Canadian waters can have negative effects on fish and fish habitat in the receiving environment due to the presence of deleterious substances. (see footnote 33) The expected reduction in concentrations of arsenic, cyanide, and un-ionized ammonia in receiving waters is expected to reduce negative effects of effluent on fish and fish habitat. Additionally, it is expected that some of the proposed EEM requirements would reduce the number of fish required to be killed for monitoring purposes (e.g. fish tissue testing). Effluent is deposited in both fresh and marine receiving waters. Some aquatic species present in freshwater receiving waters of the affected mines are northern pike and brook trout, while marine species may include groundfish and shellfish. Marine receiving waters at another affected mine had reported sightings of seal and whale species. Aquatic species listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act have been documented in the receiving waters. Wetlands Receiving waters at affected mines may flow through or be adjacent to wetlands. Reductions in deleterious substances and effluent acutely lethal to Daphnia magna are expected to improve the function of these wetlands. Effluent is discharged to wetlands downstream of at least three affected mines that have habitats for waterfowl and some migratory birds. A wetland downstream of one affected mine is a regionally significant site with abundant, predictable food resources that bird species such as the Canada goose depend on. Other natural assets Other natural assets include waterfowl and other birds, as well as terrestrial wildlife species (such as beavers, white-tailed deer, and moose). There is evidence that high-quality summer and winter habitat of the woodland caribou is adjacent to one affected mine site. The woodland caribou is a threatened species on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Most affected mines are surrounded by forested land, aquatic plants, and mosses. There is evidence that the boreal felt lichen, which is listed on Schedule 1 of SARA, is within the area of one affected mine. EG&S and potential economic values As described above, EG&S flow from natural assets, and changes in natural assets would affect these EG&S, therefore increasing benefits to society. The following are some EG&S that were identified in the surrounding areas of the 11 affected mines. Fishing There are at least four affected mines with recreational fishing (i.e. angling) in receiving waters as well as waters near the mine site. Commercial fishing of Arctic char and Icelandic scallops occurs in the marine receiving waters of at least one affected mine. There are four consumption advisories for fish consumption in receiving waters at four affected mines in Ontario. These include fish consumption advisories for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and PCBs, or a combination of these substances. Fish consumption advisory literature has estimated the benefit to recreational anglers (both catch-and-release and consumption anglers) for cleaning up contaminated waters and consequently lifting fish consumption advisories, based on perceived risk and site selection modelling. (see footnote 34) Jakus and Shaw (2003) estimate that average benefit at $20.10 per angler per trip, where the benefit for consumption anglers would be higher at $36.19, and the benefit for catch-and-release anglers would be at $7.69 per angler per trip. (see footnote 35) These estimates illustrate that there is a benefit to anglers of reducing pollution in recreational fishing waters. Other use of waterways and surrounding lands Preliminary analysis indicates that there may be Indigenous subsistence and cultural use in receiving waters and surrounding areas of some affected mines. At least five affected mines have other uses of waterways. Of these, at least one affected mine has a cottage with a small dock on the same water body in which the mine discharges effluent. Other recreation in receiving waters of affected mines includes canoeing, kayaking, and other boating. Biodiversity conservation There are at least two affected mines in Ontario that have fish sanctuaries in receiving or surrounding waters, which restrict the fishing activities within the boundaries of the sanctuary. Fish sanctuaries in Ontario are used to increase a fish population, to protect fish while they are spawning or protecting their young, or to protect rare or endangered species. (see footnote 36) Concentrations of arsenic and un-ionized ammonia may be reduced in these two fish sanctuaries, which may benefit fish stocks in these sanctuaries. Benefits to fish may in turn contribute to waters with recreational or commercial fisheries, which could potentially increase corresponding use values, as discussed in the “Fishing” section. However, the result would also increase non-use benefits to society related to biodiversity and species conservation. Studies show that individuals value the existence of protected areas, rare species and biodiversity (Richardson and Loomis, 2009; Rudd et al. 2016; Haefele et al. 2016). (see footnote 37) Wetland ecological functions Wetlands adjacent to receiving waters at the affected mines would purify and treat receiving waters. Reduced concentrations of deleterious substances are expected to increase these wetlands’ capacity to filter deleterious substances in the event of an unexpected effluent discharge with concentrations above maximum limits on Schedule 4 or that is acutely lethal to Daphnia magna. Jenkins et al. (2010) (see footnote 38) estimate the value of filtering services provided by wetlands (particularly for nitrogen mitigation) to be approximately $1,250 per hectare per year. Exact values of affected wetlands that may be expected to experience improvements in filtering services have not been estimated. Societal benefits arising from the proposed EEM requirements Environmental monitoring generates critical information that is essential for the Government to provide sound stewardship of the environment. Societal benefits, particularly those arising from improved data collection and increased efficiency of EEM requirements, is supported by the findings of the Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter 5, A Study of Environmental Monitoring. (see footnote 39) The proposed EEM are expected to improve data collection by the Department, by bringing diamond mines under the MMER, adding new substances to Schedule 5, and improving fish monitoring. This enhanced data collection on the effects of effluent on fish and fish habitat would strengthen government oversight of effluent quality. Summary of benefits and costs It is expected that the proposed Amendments would generate incremental costs of $35 million to industry and Government and cost savings of $9.5 million to the metal mining sector, for a net incremental cost of $25.5 million for industry and Government over a 2018 to 2027 time frame of analysis, as shown in Table 7 below. There are potential incremental environmental benefits and improved data collected by the Department due to compliance with the proposed Amendments. Table 7: Summary of costs and benefits for metal and diamond mines This table presents the summary of costs and benefits for metal and diamond mines. Monetized Impacts (millions of dollars) 2018 to 2020 2021 to 2027 Total Societal costs Societal costs Societal costs Societal costs Incorporating diamond mines 2.1 0.0 2.1 More stringent effluent limits 18.9 8.3 27.2 Increased effluent testing 0.0 0.6 0.6 Non-acute lethality 0.0 0.2 0.2 EEM 0.2 0.6 0.9 Industry administrative costs 0.1 0.1 0.2 Government administrative costs 1.6 2.2 3.8 Total costs 22.9 12.1 35.0 Societal cost savings Societal cost savings Societal cost savings Societal cost savings EEM cost savings 3.0 6.4 9.3 Industry administrative savings 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total cost savings 3.0 6.5 9.5 Societal net costs 19.9 5.6 25.5 Qualitative societal benefits Qualitative societal benefits Qualitative societal benefits Qualitative societal benefits Potential environmental benefits from identified natural assets (i.e. surface water and groundwater, aquatic species, wetlands) and EG&S (i.e. fishing, other use of waterways and surrounding land, biodiversity conservation, and wetland ecological functioning). Enhanced data collection on the effects of effluent on fish and fish habitat. Potential environmental benefits from identified natural assets (i.e. surface water and groundwater, aquatic species, wetlands) and EG&S (i.e. fishing, other use of waterways and surrounding land, biodiversity conservation, and wetland ecological functioning). Enhanced data collection on the effects of effluent on fish and fish habitat. Potential environmental benefits from identified natural assets (i.e. surface water and groundwater, aquatic species, wetlands) and EG&S (i.e. fishing, other use of waterways and surrounding land, biodiversity conservation, and wetland ecological functioning). Enhanced data collection on the effects of effluent on fish and fish habitat. Potential environmental benefits from identified natural assets (i.e. surface water and groundwater, aquatic species, wetlands) and EG&S (i.e. fishing, other use of waterways and surrounding land, biodiversity conservation, and wetland ecological functioning). Enhanced data collection on the effects of effluent on fish and fish habitat. Note: Monetary values are discounted to present value using a 3% discount rate. Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. Sensitivity analysis The results of the costs and cost savings analysis are based on key parameter cost estimates, which could be higher or lower than indicated by available evidence. Given this uncertainty, alternative estimates have been considered. In particular, the main analysis using a 3% discount rate was compared to three scenarios: a scenario using a 7% discount rate with the main analysis, a high cost scenario using highest costs estimates, and a lower cost scenario using lowest costs estimates (Table 8). Table 8: Sensitivity analyses (millions of dollars) This table presents the sensitivity analyses (millions of dollars). Alternatives Net Costs Main analysis (from Table 7) 25.5 Main analysis discounted at 7% per year 22.6 Highest net cost scenario 25.7 Lowest net cost scenario 4.7 Note: Monetary values are discounted to present value using a 3% discount rate, unless stated otherwise. Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. For the main analysis, the Department estimates that the impacts of the proposed Amendments would result in a total incremental net cost of $25.5 million. The highest price estimates available were used for all of the proposed Amendments except for increased Schedule 4 effluent testing for metal and diamond mines and the SLT testing requirement for diamond mines, which used most-likely price estimates. However, the Department estimated low and high cost prices for each assumed compliance action for the proposed Schedule 4 effluent limits, testing effluent, and all of the EEM requirements. For example, based on differences in quotes received from various consultants, the cost of a BIC study is estimated to range between $9,750 per year and $11,759 per year. In the case of the proposed Schedule 4 effluent limits, costs for optimizing treatments/installing add-on treatments could vary depending on assumptions and mine specific factors. For instance, the 2014 Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) report gave range estimates for the cost of adding acid to reduce pH for mines operating in Canada. These ranges included, for example, a reagent cost of acid ranging from $0.35 to $1.80 (2013 $CAD) per kilogram. Incorporating these ranges into the compliance cost estimates would result in operating cost variation. (see footnote 40) For the highest cost scenario, the Department used the highest price estimates for all the proposed requirements and estimates a net cost of $25.7 million. In the lowest cost scenario, it is estimated that the proposed Amendments could result in a total net cost of $4.7 million. Thus, it is anticipated that the total net cost of the proposed Amendments could range between $4.7 and $25.7 million. “One-for-One” Rule The proposed Amendments are considered to be an “IN” under the Government of Canada’s “One-for-One” Rule. In 2018, it is expected that there would be 137 metal mines and 6 diamond mines. (see footnote 41) For metal and diamond mines, the net increase in annualized administrative costs would be approximately $5,800, or $40 per mine. (see footnote 42), (see footnote 43) Increased administrative burden is attributable to the incorporation of diamond mines into the MMER. Diamond mines would assume a net increase of $10,400 per year or $1,730 per mine. (see footnote 44) There would be increases in administrative burden from the addition of new requirements and reductions in administrative burden from increased efficiency of EEM requirements for metal mines. Metal mines would experience a net decrease of $4,600 per year or $34 per mine. (see footnote 45) Small business lens The small business lens would not apply to the proposed Amendments. Metal and diamond mines that would be required to comply with the proposed Amendments generate gross revenues exceeding $5 million, and are not considered small businesses for the purposes of the small business lens. Consultation Between the end of 2012 and mid-2015, the Department undertook a consultation process with stakeholders and interested parties on the proposed Amendments. Participants included representatives from industry, provinces, territories, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), and associations representing Indigenous peoples. This consultation process began with the release of a discussion paper in December 2012, which outlined proposed additions and modifications to the MMER as a starting point for feedback from stakeholders and partners. A working group and several subgroups were then created to examine the main requirements of the proposed Amendments, including acute lethality, new and existing substances, selenium, and EEM. The Department presented a summary of discussions to stakeholders at a wrap-up meeting in April 2015 and subsequently developed the proposed Amendments based on the discussions and further analysis. In late 2016 and early 2017, the Department reengaged stakeholders and interested parties. This was aimed at promoting awareness and understanding of the proposed Amendments and facilitating comments during the formal 60-day comment period following Canada Gazette, Part I, publication. In December 2016, the Department shared a document providing the details of the proposed Amendments and held several teleconferences and webinars in January 2017 to discuss the proposed Amendments directly with stakeholders and interested parties. The Department reached out to national Indigenous organizations to inform them of the upcoming publication of the proposed Amendments. In summary, both support and concern was expressed for the proposed Amendments. Industry was supportive of some of the more stringent limits of deleterious substances, incorporating diamond mines, and increasing the efficiency of EEM. Industry expressed concerns with the addition of non-acute lethality to Daphnia magna and the cost of complying with more stringent concentration limits. ENGOs expressed support for the addition of Daphnia magna and new monitored substances to EEM, although they expressed that the remaining proposed Amendments were insufficiently environmentally protective. Indigenous organizations advocated for opportunities to review monitoring results, and noted the importance of EEM and its relevance to understanding the ecological implications of mining. The Department will continue engagement and consultation activities with all interested parties during the 60-day comment period. Industry The metal and diamond mining industries articulated their support for many of the proposed Amendments, particularly the updated arsenic, copper and cyanide limits for mines that are or become subject to the MMER within three years of the coming into force of the proposed Amendments. They also supported the inclusion of diamond mines in the MMER and the increased efficiency of the EEM requirements. The Department invited mining and coal industry organization representatives and mining company representatives to participate in the consultation process. Throughout the consultation process, these industry representatives provided input on mining operations, current technologies, and data interpretation. Participants also provided formal written proposals stating their views and input on the proposed Amendments. Industry — more stringent concentration limits for deleterious substances Some metal mining representatives expressed concern about the cost of compliance with some of the proposed limits for deleterious substances. Some industry representatives opposed the addition of a unionized ammonia limit, proposing instead that the Department implement a less stringent limit. In response to these concerns, the Department worked with industry representatives to ensure economic achievability, and is therefore proposing a three-year transition period for the proposed limits being added to Schedule 4. This would provide mining companies with lead time to increase capacity for effluent treatment. For the addition of the unionized ammonia limit, the Department maintains that a lower, more stringent limit is appropriate, given that metal mines have the ability to control releases of ammonia at the source, through practices to manage explosives and by optimizing reagents. (see footnote 46) The proposed limit is based on current technology and aligns with the Saskatchewan limit, the only provincial jurisdiction that sets a limit for unionized ammonia. Industry — non-acute lethality to Daphnia magna Some industry representatives expressed opposition to the addition of Daphnia magna as a compliance parameter and requested compliance flexibility be built into the proposed non-acute lethality requirement to account for test result errors that may arise. In response to this concern, the Department built in flexibility so that a first acute lethality failure for Daphnia magna would not result in a loss of the authority to deposit, while subsequent failures would. Industry — alternative test species for saline-to-saline discharges Mining projects are currently under development and are expected to draw on saline groundwater that would lead to the deposit of saline effluent into marine environments. These projects would require alternative test options for marine species, as they would be unable to pass the existing lethality tests for rainbow trout and Daphnia magna, both of which are freshwater species. The Department is incorporating an alternative test method for threespine stickleback as an alternative to rainbow trout for use in scenarios where mines are depositing saline effluent into saline receiving waters. This test method would be specified in the proposed Amendments. Mines with saline effluent and saline receiving waters would not be required to test for Daphnia magna. Provincial and territorial governments Representatives from all provinces and territories participated in the consultation process. (see footnote 47) Representatives from these provinces and territories shared technical and regulatory expertise. One formal position was received from a province with mining operations, which stated that it was generally aligned with the positions and concerns of the metal mining industry (e.g. request for compliance flexibility for non-acute lethality requirements to Daphnia magna). Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) Several ENGOs with a mining focus participated in the consultation process. ENGOs provided formal written proposals stating their views and input on the proposed Amendments. Members of the ENGO community were in support of the addition of Daphnia magna as a compliance parameter, and the addition of new monitored substances for EEM. However, they were generally in opposition to the remaining proposed Amendments, viewing them as insufficiently environmentally protective. In particular, ENGOs consider the proposed limits for deleterious substances not protective of receiving environments and too lenient to industry. ENGOs proposed multiple new substances for the inclusion as deleterious substances with new concentration limits (e.g. manganese, ammonia, phosphorus, xanthates, vanadium, uranium). In response to ENGOs, the Department stated that it shares concerns for the quality of effluent discharged to water frequented by fish. The Department indicated that further monitoring on the prevalence of substances in mine effluent and a formal technical review would be required. Therefore, the proposed Amendments would not add all these substances as deleterious substances. Alternatively, several of these substances would be added to Schedule 5 (i.e. chloride, chromium, cobalt, sulphate, thallium, uranium, phosphorus, and manganese) to be monitored under EEM. Indigenous peoples The Department invited representatives from six national organizations representing Indigenous peoples to participate in the MMER review. Four Indigenous organizations participated in the consultation process. Some technical input was provided during this process. Indigenous peoples’ participation in the consultation process aided to clarify provisions of the proposed Amendments. Regulatory cooperation Domestic cooperation Federal, provincial, and territorial governments in Canada share powers for water pollution. The federal MMER establish a baseline of effluent concentration limits and EEM for Canadian metal mines, amidst a mix of provincial requirements, including permits and regulations. The proposed Amendments would introduce more stringent standards that go beyond those of some jurisdictions. However, testing and monitoring requirements are aligned where possible with existing provincial and territorial requirements, to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. For example, Ontario, Quebec, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut already have requirements for non-acute lethality to Daphnia magna that the proposed Amendments would expand to the remaining provinces and territories in Canada. For diamond mines, there is a lack of regulatory clarity because they are covered by the general prohibition of the Fisheries Act, even though they are in compliance with requirements established by provinces and territories. The proposed Amendments would provide federal regulatory clarity to diamond mines. International cooperation The proposed Amendments would not have an impact on any international agreement, obligation, or voluntary standard. Canada and the United States (U.S.) employ similar risk management approaches for establishing effluent quality standards and monitoring requirements to manage effluents from mines, although the approaches are carried out through different types of regulatory instruments. Both Canada and the United States establish similar minimum national baseline effluent standards and emphasize a technology-based approach. In the United States, the Ore Mining and Dressing Effluent Guidelines and Standards (40 CFR Part 440) cover effluent discharges from mines. (see footnote 48) The regulatory requirements are incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, which, when established, can also include more stringent, site-specific effluent standards. In Canada, the MMER establish the minimum national baseline effluent quality standards. Provinces and territories can establish effluent quality standards in their own instruments. In Canada and the United States, there are comparable approaches that establish site-specific effluent standards. The U.S. site-specific standards are generally comparable to provincial and territorial effluent standards in Canada. The proposed Amendments are not expected to impact competitiveness within Canada, or between Canadian mines and those located in the United States. There has been recent interest regarding mining projects near international borders that could have an impact on boundary waters. In addition, jurisdictions such as British Columbia and Alaska are establishing governance mechanisms to cooperate and to share information related to managing their respective regulatory regimes for mines. Rationale The majority of effluent from the metal mining sector in Canada is not acutely lethal to fish, and the sector maintains over 95% compliance with Schedule 4 limits. Nonetheless, national assessments have provided performance and evaluation data on the kinds of sublethal effects from metal mining effluent on fish and fish habitat under the existing federal MMER and under provincial and territorial regulatory regimes. (see footnote 49) The proposed Amendments are expected to reduce risks to fish and fish habitat by reducing the level of deleterious substances in mine effluent, via more stringent effluent limits and improved non-acute lethality requirements. A decade of EEM experience illustrates that there are opportunities to improve the efficiency of certain EEM performance measurement and evaluation activities without reducing environmental protections. The proposed Amendments would improve efficiency by adding new requirements and focusing current monitoring requirements, as well as adding exemptions for mines with effluent presenting lower risks of having effects on fish and fish habitat. In addition, increased data collected by EEM would strengthen government oversight of effluent quality. The diamond mining industry in Canada has developed since the introduction of the MMER in 2002. Since that time, the industry has grown from one mine initially, to six mines today. These mines generate effluent that contains deleterious substances and they are currently subject to the general prohibition of the Fisheries Act, even though they are in compliance with provincial or territorial requirements. The proposed Amendments would add diamond mines to the application of the MMER, which would increase federal regulatory clarity for these mines. The proposed Amendments would result in $35 million in costs to industry and the Government and cost savings of $9.5 million to the metal mining sector, for a net incremental cost of $25.5 million for industry and the Government over 10 years. The Department engaged with representatives from industry, provinces, territories, ENGOs, and Indigenous organizations regarding the proposed Amendments. Overall, these groups have expressed both support for and concerns with some features of the proposed Amendments. Strategic environmental assessment A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was conducted for the proposed Amendments. The SEA concluded that the proposed Amendments are expected to support the following 2016 to 2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) goals: Healthy Coasts and Oceans, and Pristine Lakes and Rivers. Implementation, enforcement and service standards The compliance promotion approach for the proposed Amendments would include posting information such as frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the Government of Canada website, as well as responding to all inquiries or clarification requests sent by stakeholders and interested parties. The Department would also update the Regulatory Information Submission System and maintain the Environmental Effects Monitoring Electronic Reporting System to accommodate the proposed Amendments to reporting requirements (e.g. track and review selenium in fish tissue studies or updating the technical guidance document). Given that the Regulations are made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, enforcement officers would, when verifying compliance with the MMER, act in accordance with the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act (hereinafter, “the Policy”). (see footnote 50) Verification of compliance with the MMER and the Fisheries Act would include, among other inspection activities, site visits, sample analysis, and the review of reports. An enforcement officer would conduct an investigation when there is suspicion that a violation has occurred, or when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence is being or has been committed. The Policy sets out the range of possible responses to alleged violations, including the issuance of warnings, directions, authorizations, and ministerial orders, as well as court actions, which include injunctions, prosecution, court orders upon conviction, and civil suits for the recovery of costs. Performance measurement and evaluation The expected outcome of the proposed Amendments is the potential reduction of risks to fish and fish habitat. The performance of the proposed Amendments in achieving these outcomes would be evaluated within the new performance measurement framework for the proposed Amendments. Clear and quantified performance indicators (e.g. percentage of mines passing non-acute lethality tests within the concentration limits for deleterious substances, and reporting effects below the critical effect sizes) would be defined to measure progress towards this outcome. Achievement of the performance indicators would be tracked through reporting requirements and enforcement activities. The regulated community would continue to be required to submit reports to the Department through the Regulatory Information Submission System and the Environmental Effects Monitoring Electronic Reporting System. Contacts James Arnott Manager Regulatory Development and Analysis Mining and Processing Division Industrial Sectors, Chemicals and Waste Directorate Department of the Environment 351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3 Fax: 819-420-7381 Email: [email protected] Joe Devlin Senior Economist Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division Economic Analysis Directorate Strategic Policy Branch Department of the Environment 200 Sacré-Cœur Boulevard Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3 Email: [email protected] PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsections 34(2), 36(5) and 38(9) (see footnote a) and paragraphs 43(1)(g.1) (see footnote b), (g.2) (see footnote c) and (h) of the Fisheries Act (see footnote d), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the 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 James Arnott, Mining and Processing Division, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3 (fax: 819-420-7381; email: [email protected] canada.ca). Ottawa, May 4, 2017 Jurica Čapkun Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Amendments 1 The title of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (see footnote 51) is replaced by the following: Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations 2 (1) The definitions acutely lethal effluent, acute lethality test, authorization officer, Daphnia magna monitoring test, deleterious substance, grab sample, mine, mine under development, new mine, operations area, recognized closed mine, reopened mine, surface drainage, total suspended solids and transitional authorization in subsection 1(1) of the Regulations are repealed. (2) The definitions effluent, milling and operator in subsection 1(1) of the Regulations are replaced by the following: effluent includes (a) hydrometallurgical facility effluent, milling facility effluent, mine water effluent, mine waste disposal area effluent, treatment pond effluent and treatment facility effluent other than effluent from a sewage treatment facility; and (b) any seepage, surface runoff or stormwater that flows over, through or out of the site of a mine. (effluent) milling means any of the following activities for the purpose of producing a diamond, metal or metal concentrate: (a) the crushing or grinding of ore or kimberlite; (b) the processing of uranium ore or uranium enriched solution; or (c) the processing of tailings. (préparation du minerai) operator means any person who operates, has control or custody of or is in charge of a mine. (exploitant) (3) Subsection 1(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: acutely lethal, in respect of an effluent, means that the effluent at 100% concentration kills (a) more than 50% of the rainbow trout subjected to it for a period of 96 hours, when tested in accordance with the acute lethality test set out in section 14.1; or (b) more than 50% of the threespine stickleback subjected to it for a period of 96 hours, when tested in accordance with the acute lethality test set out in section 14.2. (létalité aiguë) diamond mine means any work or undertaking that is designed or is used, or has been used, in connection with a mining or milling activity to produce a diamond or an ore from which a diamond may be produced. It includes any cleared or disturbed area that is adjacent to such a work or undertaking. (mine de diamant) metal mine means any work or undertaking that is designed or is used, or has been used, in connection with a mining, milling or hydrometallurgical activity to produce a metal or a metal concentrate or an ore from which a metal or a metal concentrate may be produced, as well as any cleared or disturbed area that is adjacent to such a work or undertaking. It includes any work or undertaking, such as a smelter, pelletizing plant, sintering plant, refinery or acid plant, if its effluent is combined with the effluent from a mining, milling or hydrometallurgical activity whose purpose is to produce a metal or a metal concentrate or an ore from which a metal or a metal concentrate may be produced. (mine de métaux) Reference Method EPS 1/RM/10 means Biological Test Method: Acute Lethality Test Using Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteusaculeatus), July 1990, published by the Department of the Environment, as amended in March 2000, and as further amended from time to time. (méthode de référence SPE 1/RM/10) suspended solids means any solid matter contained in an effluent that is retained on a 1.5 micron pore filter paper when the effluent is tested in compliance with the analytical requirements set out in Table 1 of Schedule 3. (matières en suspension) treatment facility effluent means water from a polishing pond, treatment pond, settling pond or water treatment plant or from any mine effluent treatment facility. (effluent d’installations de traitement) (4) The definition acutely lethal in subsection 1(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b): (c) more than 50% of the Daphnia magna subjected to it for a period of 48 hours, when tested in accordance with the acute lethality test set out in section 14.3. (5) Subsection 1(2) of the Regulations is repealed. (6) Section 1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (2) Every reference in these Regulations to column 1, 2, 3 or 4 of Schedule 4 shall be read as (a) a reference to column 1, 2, 3 or 4 of Table 1 of Schedule 4, in the case of a mine referred to in subparagraph 4(1)(a)(i); or (b) a reference to column 1, 2, 3 or 4 of Table 2 of Schedule 4, in the case of a mine referred to in subparagraph 4(1)(a)(ii). 3 (1) Sections 2 to 4 of the Regulations are replaced by the following: 2 (1) These Regulations apply in respect of the following mines: (a) metal mines that, at any time on or after June 6, 2002, (i) exceed an effluent flow rate of 50 m 3 per day, based on the effluent deposited from all the final discharge points of the mine, and (ii) deposit a deleterious substance in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act; and (b) diamond mines that, at any time on or after June 1, 2018, (i) exceed an effluent flow rate of 50 m 3 per day, based on the effluent deposited from all the final discharge points of the mine, and (ii) deposit a deleterious substance in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act. (2) However, these Regulations do not apply in respect of (a) placer mining; (b) a metal mine that stopped commercial operation before June 6, 2002, unless it returns to commercial operation on or after that date; and (c) a diamond mine that stopped commercial operation before June 1, 2018, unless it returns to commercial operation on or after that date. (3) Despite subsection (1), sections 4 to 31 do not apply in respect of a mine that is a recognized closed mine under subsection 32(2) unless it returns to commercial operation, in which case it ceases to be a recognized closed mine. Prescribed Deleterious Substances 3 For the purpose of the definition deleterious substance in subsection 34(1) of the Act, the following substances or classes of substances are prescribed as deleterious substances: (a) arsenic; (b) copper; (c) cyanide; (d) lead; (e) nickel; (f) zinc; (g) suspended solids; and (h) radium 226. Authority to Deposit in Water or Place Referred to in Subsection 36(3) of Act 4 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or operator of a mine is authorized to deposit, or to permit the deposit of, an effluent containing any deleterious substance that is prescribed in section 3 in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act if (a) the concentration of the deleterious substance in the effluent does not exceed the maximum authorized concentrations that are set out in columns 2, 3 and 4 of 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) subject to section 4.1, the effluent is not acutely lethal. (2) The authority in subsection (1) is conditional on the owner or operator complying with sections 6 to 27. (2) Section 3 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (g), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (h) and by adding the following after paragraph (h): (i) un-ionized ammonia. (3) Paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (a) the concentration of the deleterious substance in the effluent does not exceed the maximum authorized concentrations that are set out in columns 2, 3 and 4 of (i) Table 1 of Schedule 4, in the case of a mine in respect of which these Regulations apply for the first time on or after June 1, 2021 or in the case of a recognized closed mine that returns to commercial operation on or after June 1, 2021, or (ii) Table 2 of Schedule 4, in any other case; 4 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 4: 4.1 The condition set out in paragraph 4(1)(c) does not apply if an effluent sample is determined to be acutely lethal in accordance with the procedures set out in section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 when the owner or operator is testing at the frequency prescribed in subsection 14(1). 5 The heading before section 5 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: Authority to Deposit in Mine Waste Disposal Areas 6 (1) The portion of subsection 5(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: 5 (1) Despite section 4, the owner or operator of a mine may deposit or permit the deposit of waste rock or an effluent that contains any concentration of a deleterious substance that is prescribed in section 3 and that is of any pH into a mine waste disposal area that is either (2) Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following: b) tout site d’entreposage circonscrit par une formation naturelle ou un ouvrage artificiel, ou les deux, à l’exclusion d’un site d’entreposage qui est un plan d’eau naturel où vivent des poissons ou qui en fait partie. (3) Subsection 5(2) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (2) Le propriétaire ou l’exploitant d’une mine ne peut se prévaloir de l’autorisation que lui confère le paragraphe (1) que s’il respecte les conditions prévues aux articles 7 à 28. 7 Section 7 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 7 (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall conduct environmental effects monitoring studies in accordance with the requirements and within the periods set out in Schedule 5. (2) The studies shall be performed using documented and validated methods, 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. (3) The owner or operator shall record the results of the studies and submit to the Minister of the Environment, in accordance with the requirements set out in Schedule 5, the reports and information required by that Schedule. 8 (1) Subsection 8(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (2) The information that shall be submitted is (a) the name and address of both the owner and the operator of the mine; (b) the name and address of any parent company of the owner and the operator; and (2) Subsection 8(2) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b): (c) the design-rated capacity of the mine, expressed as tonnes per year, and a description and rationale of how the design-rated capacity was determined. 9 Paragraph 9(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (a) plans, specifications and a general description of each final discharge point together with its location by latitude and longitude; 10 (1) Sections 12 and 13 of the Regulations are replaced by the following: 12 (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall, not less than once per week and at least 24 hours apart, collect from each final discharge point a grab sample or composite sample of effluent and record the pH of the sample at the time of its collection and record, without delay after collecting the sample, the concentrations of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3. (2) Testing conducted under subsection (1) shall comply with the analytical requirements set out in Table 1 of Schedule 3 and shall be done in accordance with generally accepted standards of good scientific practice at the time of the sampling using documented and validated methods. (3) Despite subsection (1), the owner or operator of a mine is not required to collect samples for the purpose of recording the concentrations of cyanide if cyanide has never been used as a process reagent at the mine. 13 (1) The owner or operator of a mine may reduce the frequency of conducting tests relating to the concentrations of arsenic, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, zinc or un-ionized ammonia at a final discharge point to not less than once in each calendar quarter and at least one month apart, if that substance’s monthly mean concentration at that final discharge point is less than 10% of the value set out in column 2 of Schedule 4 for 12 consecutive months. (2) The owner or operator of a mine, other than an uranium mine, may reduce the frequency of conducting tests relating to the concentration of radium 226 at a final discharge point to not less than once in each calendar quarter and at least one month apart, if the concentration of radium 226 at that final discharge point is less than 0.037 Bq/L for 10 consecutive weeks. (3) The owner or operator of a mine shall increase the frequency of conducting tests relating to the concentration of a deleterious substance at a final discharge point to that prescribed in section 12 (a) in the case of a deleterious substance mentioned in subsection (1), if that substance’s monthly mean concentration at that final discharge point is equal to or greater than 10% of the value set out in column 2 of Schedule 4; and (b) in the case of radium 226, if the concentration of radium 226 at that final discharge point is equal to or greater than 0.037 Bq/L. (4) The owner or operator of a mine shall increase the frequency of conducting tests relating to the concentration of a deleterious substance at all final discharge points to that prescribed in section 12 for all the substances mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) if the owner or operator (a) fails to perform a test within the time required under those subsections; or (b) fails to submit a report required under subsection 21(1) or section 22. (5) If the owner or operator of a mine changes the location of a final discharge point, the owner or operator shall increase the frequency of conducting tests relating to the concentration of a deleterious substance at that final discharge point to that prescribed in section 12 for all the deleterious substances mentioned in subsections (1) and (2). (6) The owner or operator of a mine who reduces the frequency of conducting tests under subsection (1) or (2) shall (a) notify the Minister of the Environment, in writing, at least 30 days in advance, of that fact; (b) select and record the sampling dates not less than 30 days in advance of collecting the samples of effluent; and (c) collect the sample on the selected day except if, owing to unforeseen circumstances, they cannot sample on that day, in which case, they shall do so as soon as practicable after that day. (2) Subsection 12(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 12 (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall, not less than once per week and at least 24 hours apart, collect from each final discharge point (a) a grab sample or composite sample of effluent and record the pH of the sample at the time of its collection and record, without delay after collecting the sample, the concentrations of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3 except un-ionized ammonia; and (b) a grab sample of effluent and record the temperature and the pH of the sample at the time of its collection and record, without delay after collecting the sample, the concentrations of total ammonia expressed as nitrogen (N). (3) Section 12 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (3): (4) The owner or operator of a mine shall determine and record the un-ionized ammonia fraction, using the temperature, pH and concentration of total ammonia recorded under paragraph (1)(b), in accordance with the following formula: A (1/(1 + 10 pKa-pH )) where A is the concentration of total ammonia — which is the sum of un-ionized ammonia (NH3) and ionized ammonia (NH4 + ) — expressed in mg/L as nitrogen (N); pH is the pH of the effluent sample; and pKa is a dissociation constant calculated in accordance with the following formula: 0.09018 + 2729.92/T where T is the temperature of the effluent sample in kelvin. 11 (1) Section 14 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: General 14 (1) Subject to section 15, the owner or operator of a mine shall collect, once a month, a grab sample of effluent from each final discharge point and determine whether the effluent is acutely lethal by conducting acute lethality tests on aliquots of each effluent sample in accordance with sections 14.1 and 14.2. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the owner or operator of a mine (a) shall select and record the sampling date not less than 30 days in advance of collecting the grab sample; (b) shall collect the sample on the selected day except if, owing to unforeseen circumstances, they cannot sample on that day, in which case, they shall do so as soon as practicable after that day; and (c) shall collect the grab samples not less than 15 days apart. (3) When collecting a grab sample of effluent for the purposes of subsection (1), the owner or operator of a mine shall (a) collect a sufficient volume of effluent to enable the owner or operator to comply with paragraph 15(1)(a); and (b) record the temperature and the pH of each grab sample of effluent at the time of the sample’s collection. Acute Lethality Test — Rainbow Trout 14.1 If the salinity value of either the effluent or the receiving body of water is less than ten parts per thousand, the owner or operator of a mine shall determine whether the effluent is acutely lethal by conducting an acute lethality test in accordance with the procedures set out in section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13. Acute Lethality Test — Threespine Stickleback 14.2 If the salinity value of both the effluent and the receiving body of water are equal to or greater than ten parts per thousand, the owner or operator of a mine shall determine whether the effluent is acutely lethal by conducting an acute lethality test in accordance with the procedures set out in sections 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/10. (2) Subsection 14(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 14 (1) Subject to section 15, the owner or operator of a mine shall collect, once a month, a grab sample of effluent from each final discharge point and determine whether the effluent is acutely lethal by conducting acute lethality tests on aliquots of each effluent sample in accordance with sections 14.1 to 14.3. 12 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 14.2: Acute Lethality Test — Daphnia Magna 14.3 If the salinity value of either the effluent or the receiving body of water is less than four parts per thousand, the owner or operator of a mine shall, in addition to conducting the acute lethality test set out in section 14.1, determine whether the effluent is acutely lethal by conducting an acute lethality test in accordance with the procedures set out in section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14. 13 (1) The portion of subsection 15(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (c) is replaced by the following: 15 (1) If an effluent sample is determined to be acutely lethal by an acute lethality test, 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 subsection 14(1) and record the concentrations of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3; (b) collect, from the final discharge point from which the effluent sample determined to be acutely lethal was collected, a grab sample twice a month and, without delay after collecting the sample, conduct the acute lethality test that determined the effluent sample to be acutely lethal on each grab sample in accordance with the procedure set out in section 6 of the applicable reference method and, if the sample is determined to be acutely lethal, then conduct the effluent characterization set out in subsection 4(1) of Schedule 5 and record the concentrations of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3; and (2) Paragraphs 15(1)(a) and (b) of the Regulations are replaced by the following: (a) without delay, (i) conduct the effluent characterization set out in subsection 4(1) of Schedule 5 on the aliquot of each grab sample collected under subsection 14(1), (ii) record the concentration of total ammonia and, using that concentration and using the temperature and pH recorded under paragraph 14(3)(b), determine the un-ionized ammonia fraction in accordance with the formula set out in subsection 12(4), and (iii) record the concentrations of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3; (b) from the final discharge point from which the effluent sample determined to be acutely lethal was collected, collect a grab sample twice a month, record the temperature and the pH of each sample at the time of its collection and, without delay, conduct the acute lethality test that determined the effluent sample to be acutely lethal on each grab sample in accordance with the procedure set out in section 6 of the applicable reference method and, if the sample is determined to be acutely lethal, without delay, (i) conduct the effluent characterization set out in subsection 4(1) of Schedule 5 on the aliquot of each grab sample, (ii) record the concentration of total ammonia and, using that concentration and using the temperature and pH recorded under this paragraph, determine the un-ionized ammonia fraction in accordance with the formula set out in subsection 12(4), and (iii) record the concentrations of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3; and 14 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 15: 15.1 Despite paragraph 15(1)(c), if an effluent sample is determined to be acutely lethal when tested using the acute lethality test set out in section 14.3, the owner or operator of a mine shall, without delay, collect the first grab sample required by paragraph 15(1)(b) and comply with the requirements of that paragraph. 15 (1) Subsections 16(1) to (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following: 16 (1) The owner or operator of a mine may reduce the frequency of conducting an acute lethality test at a final discharge point to once in each calendar quarter if the effluent from that final discharge point is determined not to be acutely lethal by that acute lethality test for 12 consecutive months. (2) For the purpose of determining whether that effluent is acutely lethal for the 12-month period referred to in subsection (1), the owner or operator of a mine shall use the results of the acute lethality tests conducted under subsection 14(1). (3) The owner or operator of a mine shall notify the Minister of the Environment in writing at least 30 days before the reduction of the frequency of acute lethality testing. (2) Subsection 16(5) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (5) If a grab sample is determined to be acutely lethal by an acute lethality test when the owner or operator of a mine is testing at the frequency prescribed in subsection (1), the owner or operator shall increase the frequency of conducting that test to the frequency prescribed in section 15 and conduct that test in accordance with that section. (6) If the location of a final discharge point is changed, the owner or operator of a mine shall, at that final discharge point, increase the frequency of conducting all the acute lethality tests to the frequency prescribed in subsection 14(1) and conduct those tests in accordance with that subsection. 16 (1) Subsection 17(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 17 (1) If the salinity value of either the effluent or the receiving body of water is less than four parts per thousand, 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) Section 17 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed. 17 (1) Section 18 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 18 The owner or operator of a mine shall record without delay the data specified by section 8 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/10, section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 for all acute lethality tests and Daphnia magna monitoring tests that are conducted to monitor deposits from final discharge points. (2) Section 18 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 18 The owner or operator of a mine shall record without delay the data specified by section 8 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/10, section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 for all acute lethality tests that are conducted to monitor deposits from final discharge points. 18 Paragraph 19(3)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (b) maintain and calibrate the monitoring system at least once in each year and record the results, as well as the date on which and the manner in which the requirement to maintain and calibrate has been met. 19 (1) Subsection 19.1(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 19.1 (1) With respect to the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3 that are contained in the effluent deposited from each final discharge point, the owner or operator of a mine shall, for each month during which there is a deposit and during which samples are collected, record the monthly mean concentration (a) in mg/L for deleterious substances referred to in paragraphs 3(a) to (g); and (b) in Bq/L for a deleterious substance referred to in paragraph 3(h). (2) Paragraph 19.1(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (a) in mg/L for deleterious substances referred to in paragraphs 3(a) to (g) and (i); and 20 (1) Subsection 20(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 20 (1) With respect to the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3 that are contained in the effluent deposited from each final discharge point, the owner or operator of a mine shall, for each month and for each calendar quarter during which there was a deposit and during which a sample is collected, record the loading (a) in kg for deleterious substances referred to paragraphs 3(a) to (g); and (b) in MBq for a deleterious substance referred to in paragraph 3(h). (2) Paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (a) in kg for deleterious substances referred to paragraphs 3(a) to (g) and (i); and 21 (1) Paragraphs 21(2)(a) and (b) of the Regulations are replaced by the following: (a) the data specified by section 8 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/10, section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14 as required by section 18; (b) the concentration and monthly mean concentration of each deleterious substance prescribed in section 3 that is contained in the effluent samples collected under subsection 12(1) and the concentrations of such deleterious substances contained in the effluent samples collected under subsection 13(1) or (2); (2) Paragraph 21(2)(f) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (f) the mass loading of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3 as recorded under section 20; and 22 Section 22 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 22 The owner or operator of a mine shall submit to the Minister of the Environment, not later than March 31 in each year, a report in the form set out in Schedule 6, that shall include the following: (a) the identifying information set out in Part 1 of that Schedule; (b) the effluent monitoring results for the previous calendar year, including (i) test results respecting each final discharge point, and (ii) the results of acute lethality tests; and (c) the following information regarding non-compliance: (i) if the results of any effluent monitoring tests indicate that the maximum authorized concentrations set out in Schedule 4 were exceeded or that the pH of the effluent is less than 6.0 or greater than 9.5, the causes of that non-compliance and the remedial measures that are planned or that have been implemented, and (ii) if the results of any acute lethality tests indicate that an effluent sample was determined to be acutely lethal, the remedial measures that are planned or that have been implemented. 23 (1) The portion of subsection 24(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: 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 section 12 or 13, subsection 14(1) or section 15 or 16 indicate that (2) Subsection 24(3) of the Regulations is repealed. 24 Sections 27 and 27.1 of the Regulations are replaced by the following: 27 The owner or operator of a mine shall keep all records, books of account or other documents required by these Regulations at the mine for a period of not less than five years, beginning on the day on which they are made, including (a) records relating to all final discharge points, including any changes to those records; (b) records relating to effluent monitoring equipment, including the calibration of that equipment; (c) records relating to the data specified by section 8 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/10, section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13 and section 8.1 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14; (d) compensation plans; (e) emergency response plans, including each update to the plan; (f) reports on any unauthorized deposits; (g) reports or other documents prepared and data collected for the purposes of environmental effects monitoring studies; and (h) records and reports of measurements with respect to the pH, temperature and concentration of any deleterious substances prescribed in section 3. DIVISION 4 Mine Waste Disposal Areas Compensation Plan 27.1 (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall, before depositing a deleterious substance into a mine waste disposal area that is set out in Schedule 2, submit to the Minister of the Environment a compensation plan that includes the information described in subsection (2) and obtain that Minister’s approval of the plan. (2) The purpose of the compensation plan is to offset for the loss of fish habitat resulting from the deposit of any deleterious substances into the mine waste disposal area. It shall contain the following information: (a) a description of the location of the mine waste disposal area and of fish habitat that will be affected by the deposit; (b) a quantitative impact assessment of the deposit on fish habitat; (c) a description of the measures to be taken to offset the loss of fish habitat; (d) a description of the measures to be taken during the planning and implementation of the compensation plan to mitigate any potential adverse effects on fish habitat that could result from the plan’s implementation; (e) a description of the measures to be taken to monitor the plan’s implementation; (f) a description of the measures to be taken to verify the extent to which the plan’s purpose has been achieved; (g) the time required to implement the plan that allows for the achievement of the plan’s purpose within a reasonable time; and (h) an estimate of the cost of implementing each element of the plan. (3) The owner or operator shall submit with the compensation plan an irrevocable letter of credit to cover the plan’s implementation costs, which letter of credit shall be payable upon demand on the declining balance of the implementation costs. (4) The Minister of the Environment shall approve the compensation plan if it meets the requirements of subsection (2) and the owner or operator of a mine has complied with subsection (3). (5) The owner or operator of a mine shall ensure that the compensation plan approved by the Minister of the Environment is implemented and, if the compensation plan’s purpose is not being achieved, the owner or operator shall inform the Minister of the Environment. (6) If the compensation plan’s purpose is not being achieved, the owner or operator of a mine shall, as soon as practicable in the circumstances, identify and implement all necessary remedial measures to ensure that the purpose is achieved. 25 The heading before section 28 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: Deposits from Mine Waste Disposal Areas 26 (1) Subsection 28(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 28 (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall deposit the effluent from a mine waste disposal area only through a final discharge point that is monitored and reported on in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations. (2) Subsection 28(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following: (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 mine waste disposal area. 27 Section 29 of the Regulations and the headings before it are replaced by the following: PART 3 Unauthorized Deposits 28 (1) Subsection 30(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 30 (1) The owner or operator of a mine shall prepare an emergency response plan that describes the measures to be taken in respect of a deleterious substance within the meaning of subsection 34(1) of the Act to prevent any unauthorized deposit of such a substance or to mitigate the effects of such a deposit. (2) Paragraphs 30(2)(a) to (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following: (a) the identification of any unauthorized deposit that can reasonably be expected to occur at the mine and that can reasonably be expected to result in damage or danger to fish habitat or fish or the use by man of fish, and the identification of the damage or danger; (b) a description of the measures to be used to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from a deposit identified under paragraph (a); (c) a list of the individuals who are to implement the plan in the event of an unauthorized deposit, and a description of their roles and responsibilities; (3) Section 30 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (4): (4.1) The owner or operator shall, each time the emergency response plan is tested, record the following information and keep the record for at least five years: (a) a summary of the test; (b) the test results; and (c) any modifications that are made to the plan as a consequence of the test. (4.2) The owner or operator shall ensure that a copy of the most recent version of the emergency response plan is kept at the mine in a location that is readily available to the individuals who are responsible for implementing the plan. 29 (1) Section 31 of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 31 A report required by subsection 38(7) of the Act in respect of the unauthorized deposit of a deleterious substance shall contain the following information: (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 day on which, and hour at which, the deposit occurred; (d) the quantity of the deleterious substance that was deposited at a place other than through a final discharge point and the identification of that place, including the location by latitude and longitude and, if applicable, the civic address; (e) the quantity of the deleterious substance that was deposited through a final discharge point and the identification of that discharge point; (f) the name of the receiving body of water, if there is a name, and the location by latitude and longitude where the deleterious substance entered the receiving body of water; (g) the results of the acute lethality test conducted under subsection 31.1(1); (h) a statement that an acute lethality test was not conducted but that notification was given under subsection 31.1(2), as the case may be; (i) 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; and (j) the measures that were taken, or that are intended to be taken, to prevent any similar occurrence of an unauthorized deposit. Acute Lethality Testing 31.1 (1) If an unauthorized deposit of a deleterious substance occurs, the owner or operator of a mine shall, without delay, collect a grab sample of effluent at the place where the deposit occurred and determine whether the effluent is acutely lethal by conducting tests on aliquots of each effluent sample in accordance with sections 14.1 and 14.2. (2) Despite subsection (1), the owner or operator is not required to conduct that test if they notify an inspector, without delay, that the deposit is an acutely lethal effluent. (2) Subsection 31.1(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following: 31.1 (1) If an unauthorized deposit of a deleterious substance occurs, the owner or operator of a mine shall, without delay, collect a grab sample of effluent at the place where the deposit occurred and determine whether the effluent is acutely lethal by conducting tests on aliquots of each effluent sample in accordance with sections 14.1 to 14.3. 30 Parts 5 and 6 of the Regulations are repealed. 31 Schedule 1 to the Regulations is repealed. 32 The heading of the table to Schedule 2 to the Regulations is replaced by the following: Mine Waste Disposal Areas 33 Schedule 3 to the Regulations is replaced by the Schedule 3 set out in Schedule 1 to these Regulations. 34 (1) Schedule 4 to the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading “Schedule 4” with the following: (Paragraph 4(1)(a), subsection 13(1), paragraph 13(3)(a), subparagraphs 22(c)(i) and (ii) and paragraph 24(1)(a)) (2) Schedule 4 to the Regulations is replaced by the Schedule 4 set out in Schedule 2 to these Regulations. 35 (1) Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the Schedule 5 set out in Schedule 3 to these Regulations. (2) Schedule 5 to the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading “Schedule 5” with the following: (Subsections 7(1) and (3), subparagraphs 15(1)(a)(i) and (b)(i) and paragraph 32(1)(c)) (3) Subsection 4(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (n), by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (o) and by striking out paragraph (p). 36 (1) Part 2 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations is replaced by the following: PART 2 Test Results Respecting Each Final Discharge Point 1 Complete the following table with the monthly mean concentration for the deleterious substances set out in the table for each final discharge point and identify the location of the final discharge point. 2 Any measurement not taken because there was no deposit from the final discharge point shall be identified by the letters “NDEP” (No Deposit). 3 Any measurement not taken because no measurement was required in accordance with the conditions set out in section 12 or 13 of these Regulations shall be identified by the letters “NMR” (No Measurement Required). This table is used to present the location of final discharge point to be completed. Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Month As (mg/L) Cu (mg/L) CN (mg/L) Pb (mg/L) Ni (mg/L) Zn (mg/L) SS (mg/L) Ra 226 (Bq/L) Un-ionized ammonia (mg/L, expressed as Nitrogen (N)) Lowest pH Highest pH Effluent Volume (m³) Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. (2) Parts 3 and 4 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations are replaced by the following: PART 3 Results of Acute Lethality Tests and Daphnia Magna Monitoring Tests This table is used to present the results of acute lethality tests. Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Date Sample Collected Results for Rainbow Trout Acute Lethality Tests (mean percentage mortality in 100% effluent test concentration) Results for Daphnia magna Monitoring Tests (mean percentage mortality in 100% effluent test concentration) Results for Threespine Stickleback Acute Lethality Tests (mean percentage mortality in 100% effluent test concentration) (3) Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations is replaced by the following: PART 3 Results of Acute Lethality Tests This table is used to present the results of acute lethality tests. Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Location of final discharge point: Date Sample Collected Results for Rainbow Trout Acute Lethality Tests (mean percentage mortality in 100% effluent test concentration) Results for Daphnia magna Acute Lethality Tests (mean percentage mortality in 100% effluent test concentration) Results for Threespine Stickleback Acute Lethality Tests (mean percentage mortality in 100% effluent test concentration) 37 Schedules 6.1 to 8 to the Regulations are repealed. 38 The Regulations are amended by replacing “authorization officer” with “Minister of the Environment” in the following provisions: (a) subsections 8(1) and (3); (b) the portion of section 9 before paragraph (a); (c) subsections 10(1) and (2); (d) subsection 21(1); (e) section 26; (f) paragraphs 32(1)(a) and (b) and subsections 32(3) and (4); and (g) subsections 33(1) and (3). Transitional Provisions 39 (1) Despite subsection 8(1) of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations, the owner or operator of a mine that is subject to those Regulations on the day on which this section comes into force shall submit in writing to the Minister of the Environment the information referred to in paragraph 8(2)(c) of those Regulations not later than 60 days after the day on which this section comes into force. (2) During the 12-month period beginning on the day on which this section comes into force, despite subsection 16(2) of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations, the owner or operator of a diamond mine may, for the purposes of determining whether effluent is acutely lethal for the 12-month period referred to in subsection 16(1) of those Regulations, use acute lethality data that was collected during any period of 12 consecutive months before the day on which this section comes into force, if the owner or operator submits a report to the Minister of the Environment that indicates that (a) the tests to determine acute lethality have been conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/10 or section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/13; (b) the data relates to effluent generated after the start of commercial operation by the mine; and (c) the data was collected not more than 36 months before the day on which this section comes into force. (3) During the 12-month period beginning on the day on which section 14.3 of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations comes into force, despite subsection 16(2) of those Regulations, the owner or operator of a metal mine or diamond mine may, for the purposes of determining whether effluent is acutely lethal for the 12-month period referred to in subsection 16(1) of those Regulations, use acute lethality data that was collected during any period of 12 consecutive months before the day on which that section 14.3 comes into force, if the owner or operator submits a report to the Minister of the Environment that indicates that (a) the tests to determine acute lethality have been conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in section 5 or 6 of Reference Method EPS 1/RM/14; (b) the data relates to effluent generated after the start of commercial operation by the mine; and (c) the data was collected not more than 36 months before the day on which section 14.3 of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations comes into force. (4) The owner or operator of a diamond mine may use the results of studies conducted not more than 10 years before the day on which this section comes into force for the purpose of determining which biological monitoring studies are required to be conducted under section 9 of Schedule 5 to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations if those results can be used for the purpose of meeting the requirements of section 12 of that Schedule. (5) If the results referred to in subsection (4) are used for the purpose referred to in that subsection, (a) the first study design shall include, in addition to the information referred to in section 10 of Schedule 5 to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations, the information referred to in paragraph 13(d) or (e), as the case may be, of that Schedule, copies of and a summary of the studies and an explanation — that includes supporting information — as to how the studies can be used for the purposes of complying with sections 9 and 12 of that Schedule; and (b) the first interpretative report shall contain, in addition to the information referred to in section 12 of Schedule 5 to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations, the information referred to in paragraph 15(c) of that Schedule. (6) The owner or operator of a mine who, on the day on which this section comes into force, has commenced biological monitoring studies shall complete those studies and submit the corresponding interpretative report in accordance with the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, as they read immediately before the day on which this section comes into force. Coming into Force 40 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on June 1, 2018, but if they are registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered. (2) Subsections 2(4) and (6) and 3(2) and (3), section 4, subsections 10(2) and (3) and 11(2), section 12, subsection 13(2), section 14, subsections 16(2), 17(2), 19(2), 20(2) and 29(2), 34(2) and 35(2) and (3) and 36(1) and (3) come into force on June 1, 2021. SCHEDULE 1 (Section 33) SCHEDULE 3 (Subsections 1(1) and 12(2)) Analytical Requirements for Metal or Diamond Mining Effluent Table 1 This table presents analytical requirements for metal or diamond mining effluent. Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Item Deleterious Substance/pH/temperature Precision (see footnote 52) Accuracy (see footnote 53) Method Detection Limit (MDL) 1 Arsenic 10% 100 ± 10% 0.0025 mg/L 2 Copper 10% 100 ± 10% 0.001 mg/L 3 Cyanide 10% 100 ± 10% 0.005 mg/L 4 Lead 10% 100 ± 10% 0.0005 mg/L 5 Nickel 10% 100 ± 10% 0.0125 mg/L 6 Zinc 10% 100 ± 10% 0.010 mg/L 7 Suspended Solids 15% 100 ± 15% 2.000 mg/L 8 Radium 226 10% 100 ± 10% 0.01 Bq/L 9 Total ammonia 10% 100 ± 10% 0.05 mg/L expressed as nitrogen (N) 10 pH 0.1 pH unit 0.1 pH unit Not Applicable 11 Temperature 10% ± 0.5 °C Not Applicable Table 2 This table presents analytical requirements for metal or diamond mining effluent. Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Item Substances/hardness/alkalinity/electrical conductivity Precision (see footnote 54) Accuracy (see footnote 55) Method Detection Limit (MDL) 1 Aluminum 10% 100 ± 10% 0.005 mg/L 2 Cadmium 10% 100 ± 10% 0.000045 mg/L 3 Chloride 10% 100 ± 10% 60 mg/L 4 Chromium 10% 100 ± 10% 0.00445 mg/L 5 Cobalt 10% 100 ± 10% 0.00125 mg/L 6 Iron 10% 100 ± 10% 0.15 mg/L 7 Manganese 10% 100 ± 10% 0.005 mg/L 8 Mercury 10% 100 ± 10% 0.00001 mg/L 9 Molybdenum 10% 100 ± 10% 0.0365 mg/L 10 Nitrate 10% 100 ± 10% 1.46835 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N) 11 Phosphorus 10% 100 ± 10% 0.05 mg/L 12 Selenium 10% 100 ± 10% 0.0005 mg/L 13 Sulphate 10% 100 ± 10% 0.6 mg/L 14 Thallium 10% 100 ± 10% 0.0004 mg/L 15 Uranium 10% 100 ± 10% 0.0075 mg/L 16 Total ammonia 10% 100 ± 10% 0.05 mg/L expressed as nitrogen (N) 17 Hardness 10% 100 ± 10% 1 mg/L 18 Alkalinity 10% 100 ± 10% 2 mg/L 19 Electrical Conductivity 10% 100 ± 10% 1 μS/cm SCHEDULE 2 (Section 34) SCHEDULE 4 (Subsection 1(2), subparagraph 4(1)(a)(i) and (ii), subsection 13(1), paragraphs 13(3)(a), subparagraph 22(c)(i) and paragraph 24(1)(a)) Maximum Authorized Concentrations of Prescribed Deleterious Substances Table 1 This table presents the maximum authorized concentrations of prescribed deleterious substances. Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Item Deleterious Substance Maximum Authorized Monthly Mean Concentration Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Composite Sample Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Grab Sample 1 Arsenic 0.10 mg/L 0.15 mg/L 0.20 mg/L 2 Copper 0.10 mg/L 0.15 mg/L 0.20 mg/L 3 Cyanide 0.50 mg/L 0.75 mg/L 1.00 mg/L 4 Lead 0.08 mg/L 0.12 mg/L 0.16 mg/L 5 Nickel 0.25 mg/L 0.38 mg/L 0.50 mg/L 6 Zinc 0.40 mg/L 0.60 mg/L 0.80 mg/L 7 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 9 Un-ionized ammonia 0.5 mg/L expressed as nitrogen (N) Not applicable 1.00 mg/L expressed as nitrogen (N) NOTE: The concentrations for items 1 to 8 are total values. Table 2 This table presents the maximum authorized concentrations of prescribed deleterious substances. Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Item Deleterious Substance Maximum Authorized Monthly Mean Concentration Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Composite Sample Maximum Authorized Concentration in a Grab Sample 1 Arsenic 0.30 mg/L 0.45 mg/L 0.60 mg/L 2 Copper 0.30 mg/L 0.45 mg/L 0.60 mg/L 3 Cyanide 0.50 mg/L 0.75 mg/L 1.00 mg/L 4 Lead 0.10 mg/L 0.15 mg/L 0.20 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 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 9 Un-ionized ammonia 0.5 mg/L expressed as nitrogen (N) Not applicable 1.00 mg/L expressed as nitrogen (N) NOTE: The concentrations for items 1 to 8 are total values. SCHEDULE 3 (Subsection 35(1)) SCHEDULE 5 (Subsections 7(1) and (3) and paragraphs 15(1)(a) and (b) and 32(1)(c)) Environmental Effects Monitoring Studies Interpretation 1 (1) The following definitions apply in this Schedule. biological monitoring study means a study referred to in section 9. (étude de suivi biologique) effect on fish tissue from mercury means a concentration of total mercury that exceeds 0.5 μg/g wet weight in fish tissue that is taken in an exposure area and that is statistically different from and higher than the concentration of total mercury in fish tissue that is taken in a reference area. (effet du mercure sur les tissus de poissons) effect on the benthic invertebrate community means a statistical difference between data referred to in subparagraph 12(1)(e)(ii) and paragraph 12(1)(f) from a study respecting the benthic invertebrate community conducted in (a) an exposure area and a reference area; or (b) sampling areas within an exposure area where there are gradually decreasing effluent concentrations. (effet sur la communauté d’invertébrés benthiques) effect on the fish population means a statistical difference between data relating to the indicators referred to in subparagraph 12(1)(e)(i) from a study respecting fish population conducted in (a) an exposure area and a reference area; or (b) sampling areas within an exposure area where there are gradually decreasing effluent concentrations. (effet sur la population de poissons) exposure area means all fish habitat and waters frequented by fish that are exposed to effluent. (zone exposée) fish has the same meaning as 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) For the purpose of this schedule, critical effect size, in relation to an effect indicator set out in column 1 of the following table, means the critical effect size set out in column 2: This table presents critical effect size, in relation to an effect indicator set out in column 1 of the table, means the critical` effect size set out in column 2. Item Column 1 Effect indicator Column 2 Critical effect size For Fish Population (% of reference mean) 1 Weight at age ± 25% 2 Relative gonad size ± 25% 3 Relative liver size ± 25% 4 Weight at length (condition) ± 10% 5 Age ± 25% For Benthic Invertebrate Community (Standard Deviation Units) 6 Density ± 2 SD 7 Simpson’s Evenness index ± 2 SD 8 Taxa Richness ± 2 SD 2 Environmental effects monitoring studies consist of the effluent and water quality monitoring studies set out in Part 1, and the 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, alkalinity, electrical conductivity and temperature of the sample and the concentrations, in total values, of the following: (a) aluminum; (b) cadmium; (c) iron; (d) subject to subsection (4), mercury; (e) molybdenum; (f) selenium; (g) nitrate (concentration in units of nitrogen); (h) chloride; (i) chromium; (j) cobalt; (k) sulphate; (l) thallium; (m) uranium; (n) phosphorus (concentration in units of phosphorus); (o) manganese; and (p) ammonia. (2) The analysis shall comply with the analytical requirements set out in Table 2 of Schedule 3. (3) The effluent characterization shall be conducted once per calendar quarter on an aliquot of effluent sample collected under sections 12 and 13 of these Regulations from each final discharge point at least one month after the sample upon which the previous characterization was conducted. (4) The recording of the concentration of mercury in effluent referred to in paragraph (1)(d) may be discontinued if that concentration is less than 0.10 µg/L in 12 consecutive samples collected under subsection (3). (5) 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, in the case of effluent deposited into fresh waters, be conducted using the following test methodologies, as amended from time to time: (a) in the case of a fish species, (i) Biological Test Method: Test of Larval Growth and Survival Using Fathead Minnows (Report EPS 1/RM/22), published by the Department of the Environment, or (ii) Biological Test Method: Toxicity Tests Using Early Life Stages of Salmonid Fish (Rainbow Trout) (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/28), published by the Department of the Environment; (b) in the case of an invertebrate species, Biological Test Method: Test of Reproduction and Survival Using the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia (Report EPS 1/RM/21), published by the Department of the Environment; (c) in the case of a plant species, Biological Test Method: Test for Measuring the Inhibition of Growth Using the Freshwater Macrophyte, Lemna minor (Reference Method EPS 1/RM/37), published by the Department of the Environment, as it applies to the biological endpoint based on the number of fronds; and (d) in the case of an algal species, (i) Biological Test Method: Growth Inhibition Test Using a Freshwater Alga (Report EPS 1/RM/25), published by the Department of the Environment, or (ii) Détermination de la toxicité : inhibition de la croissance chez l’algue Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, (Methode de référence MA 500 - P. sub. 1.0, rév. 3), published by the Centre D’Expertise En Analyse Environnementale Du Québec du Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques du Québec. (2) Sublethal toxicity testing shall, in the case of effluent deposited into marine or estuarine waters, be conducted using the following test methodologies, as amended from time to time: (a) in the case of an invertebrate species, Biological Test Method: Fertilization Assay Using Echinoids (Sea Urchins and Sand Dollars) (Report EPS 1/RM/27), published by the Department of the Environment; (b) in the case of a fish species, Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Reference Method EPA/821/R-02/014), published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (c) in the case of an algal species,Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluent and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Reference Method EPA/600/R-95-136), published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (3) The sublethal toxicity tests shall be conducted on aliquots of the same effluent sample collected for effluent characterization collected from the mine’s final discharge point that has potentially the most adverse environmental impact on the environment, taking into account (a) the loading of the deleterious substances contained in the effluent as determined under subsection 20(2) of these Regulations; and (b) the manner in which the effluent mixes within the exposure area. 6 (1) The sublethal toxicity tests shall be conducted on the species referred to in subsections 5(1) and (2) two times each calendar year for three years and each test shall be conducted on an aliquot of effluent sample collected at least one month after the collection of the sample used in the previous tests. (2) After three years, the tests shall be conducted once per calendar quarter on the species referred to in subsection 5(1) or (2), as the case may be, whose results for the six tests conducted under subsection (1) produce the lowest geometric mean, taking into account the inhibition concentration that produces a 25% effect or an effective concentration of 25%. Water Quality Monitoring 7 (1) Water quality monitoring is conducted by (a) collecting samples of water from (i) the exposure area surrounding the point of entry of effluent into water from each final discharge point and from the related reference areas, and (ii) the sampling areas that are selected under clauses 10(b)(i)(B) and 10(c)(i)(A); (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 concentration of the substances set out in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (p) and, (i) in the case of effluent that is deposited into fresh water, recording the pH, hardness, alkalinity and electrical conductivity of the water samples, (ii) in the case of effluent that is deposited into estuarine waters, recording the pH, hardness, alkalinity, electrical conductivity and salinity of the water samples, and (iii) in the case of effluent that is deposited into marine waters, recording the salinity of the water samples; (d) recording the concentration of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3 of these Regulations, but (i) not recording the concentrations of cyanide if that substance is not used as a process reagent within the operations area, and (ii) not recording the concentrations of radium 226 if the conditions of subsection 13(2) of these Regulations are met; 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 (a) four times per calendar year and at least one month apart on the samples of water collected, while the mine is depositing effluent, 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 The following information in relation to the effluent and water quality monitoring studies conducted during a calendar year under sections 4 to 7 shall be submitted to the Minister of the Environment not later than March 31 of the following year: (a) the dates on which samples were collected for effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring; (b) for each sample collected for effluent characterization, the location of the final discharge point from which samples were collected for effluent characterization; (c) the location of the final discharge point from which samples were collected for sublethal toxicity testing and the data used in selecting the final discharge point in accordance with subsection 5(3); (d) the latitude and longitude of sampling areas for water quality monitoring and a description that is sufficient to identify the location of the sampling areas; (e) the results of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring; (f) the methodologies used to conduct effluent characterization and water quality monitoring, and the related method detection limits; (g) a description of the quality assurance and quality control measures that were implemented and the data related to the implementation of those measures; and (h) with respect to every effluent sample collected at each final discharge point, the annual mean concentration of mercury and selenium. PART 2 Biological Monitoring Studies Required Studies 9 (1) Biological monitoring studies shall include (a) a study respecting fish population, if the highest recorded concentration of effluent in the exposure area – during a period in which there are deposits – is greater than 1% at any location that is 250 m from a point at which the effluent enters the area from a discharge point, unless the results of the previous two biological monitoring studies indicate (i) for an effect indicator with no assigned critical effect size, no effect on the fish population, and (ii) for an effect indicator with an assigned critical effect size, no effect on the fish population or an effect on the fish population the absolute value of the magnitude of which is less than the absolute value of its assigned critical effect size; (b) a study respecting the benthic invertebrate community, if the highest recorded concentration of effluent in the exposure area – during a period in which there are deposits – is greater than 1% at any location that is 100 m from a point at which the effluent enters the area from a discharge point, unless the results of the previous two biological monitoring studies indicate (i) for an effect indicator with no assigned critical effect size, no effect on the benthic invertebrate community, and (ii) for an effect indicator with an assigned critical effect size, no effect on the benthic invertebrate community or an effect on the benthic invertebrate community the absolute value of the magnitude of which is less than the absolute value of its assigned critical effect size; (c) a study respecting fish tissue mercury, if effluent characterization reveals an annual mean concentration of total mercury in the effluent that is equal to or greater than 0.10 µg/L, unless the results of the previous two biological monitoring studies indicate no effect on fish tissue from mercury; (d) a study respecting fish tissue selenium, if effluent characterization reveals (i) a concentration of total selenium in the effluent that is equal to or greater than 10 µg/L, or (ii) an annual mean concentration of total selenium in the effluent that is equal to or greater than 5 µg/L, based on a calendar year; and (e) if the cause of any effect on the fish population, on fish tissue from mercury or on the benthic invertebrate community is not known, a study that will be used to determine the cause of the effect if (i) the results of the two previous biological monitoring studies indicate a similar type of effect, and (ii) for an effect indicator with an assigned critical effect size, the absolute value of the magnitude of the effect is equal to or greater than the absolute value of its critical effect size in either of the two previous studies. (2) If the results of the two previous studies are used to lift the requirement to conduct a study under any of paragraphs (1)(a), (b), (c) or (e), the earlier of those two studies shall not be used to lift a requirement to conduct a subsequent study. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the concentration of effluent shall be determined or the effluent characterization shall be carried out, as the case may be, (a) in the case of the first biological monitoring studies, beginning on the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations and ending on the day on which the first study design is required to be submitted; and (b) for any subsequent biological monitoring studies, beginning on the day on which the previous study design was required to be submitted and ending on the day on which the subsequent study design is required to be submitted. DIVISION 1 First Biological Monitoring Studies First Study Design 10 Not later than 12 months after the day on which a mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations a study design shall be submitted to the Minister of the Environment. It shall contain (a) a site characterization that includes (i) a description of the manner in which the effluent mixes within each exposure area, including an estimate of the concentration of effluent in water — during a period in which there are deposits — at 100 m and 250 m from every point at which the effluent enters the area from a discharge point, (ii) a description of the reference and exposure areas where the biological monitoring studies would be conducted — whether they are required — that includes information on the geological, hydrological, oceanographical, limnological, chemical and biological features of those areas, (iii) the type of production process used by the mine and the environmental protection practices in place at the mine, (iv) a description of any anthropogenic, natural or other factors that are not related to the effluent but that may reasonably be expected to affect the results of any biological monitoring study, whether it is required, and (v) any additional information that would enable a determination as to whether studies would be conducted in accordance with generally accepted standards of good scientific practice; (b) a description of how any required study respecting fish population, fish tissue mercury and fish tissue selenium will be conducted that includes (i) 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, and (ii) an explanation as to how, in the case of the study respecting fish population or fish tissue mercury, the study will provide the information necessary to determine if the effluent has an effect on fish population or on fish tissue from mercury; (c) a description of how any required study respecting the benthic invertebrate community will be conducted that includes (i) 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, and (ii) an explanation as to how the study will provide the information necessary to determine if the effluent has an effect on the benthic invertebrate community; (d) the month in which the samples will be collected for any required biological monitoring study; (e) a description of the quality assurance and quality control measures that will be implemented for any required biological monitoring study to ensure the validity of the data that is collected; and (f) a summary of the results of any studies to determine whether the effluent was causing an effect on the fish population, fish tissue from mercury or the benthic invertebrate community and of any studies in the exposure and reference areas respecting fish tissue selenium completed before the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations and any scientific data to support the results. First Biological Monitoring Studies 11 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the first biological monitoring studies shall start not earlier than six months after the day on which a study design is submitted under section 10, and shall be conducted in accordance with that study design. (2) If the owner or operator is unable to follow the study design due to circumstances beyond their control, the owner or operator shall inform the Minister of the Environment without delay of those circumstances and of the changes that are made to the study. First Interpretative Report 12 (1) Not later than 30 months after the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations, a first interpretative report shall be submitted to the Minister of the Environment. It shall contain (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 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 mean, median, standard deviation, standard error and minimum and maximum values in the sampling areas for (i) in the case of the study respecting fish population, effect indicators of growth, reproduction, condition and survival that include, if practicable, the length, total body weight and age of the fish, the weight of its liver or hepatopancreas and, if the fish are sexually mature, the egg weight, fecundity and gonad weight of the fish, (ii) in the case of the study respecting the benthic invertebrate community, effect indicators of the total benthic invertebrate density, evenness index, taxa richness and, if the study is conducted in an area where it is possible to sample sediment, total organic carbon content of sediment and particle size distribution of sediment, (iii) in the case of the study respecting fish tissue mercury, the concentration of total mercury (wet weight) in the fish tissue effect indicator, and (iv) in the case of the study respecting fish tissue selenium, the concentration — in the muscle or whole body and, where applicable, in the ovaries or eggs — of total selenium (dry weight) reported in µg/g and the percentage of the moisture content of the sample; (f) a calculation of the similarity index effect indicator in the case of the study respecting the benthic invertebrate community; (g) an identification of the sex of the fish sampled and of the presence of any lesions, tumours, parasites or other abnormalities were present and, in the case of the study respecting fish tissue selenium, the type of fish tissue studied; (h) a determination as to whether there is a statistically significant difference between the sampling areas for the calculations under subparagraphs (e)(i) to (iii) and paragraph (f) taking into consideration the information identified under paragraph (g), with the statistical comparison made separately and independently for each effect indicator; (i) a statistical analysis of the results of the calculations under subparagraphs (e)(i) to (iii) and paragraph (g) that indicates the probability of correctly detecting an effect of a pre-defined size and the degree of confidence that can be placed in the calculations; (j) for an effect indicator referred to in paragraph (e) with an assigned critical effect size, a comparison of the magnitude of the effect — calculated in accordance with subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be — to its critical effect size; (k) any supporting data, including raw data, for the information provided under paragraphs (e) to (j); (l) a description of any quality assurance or quality control measures that were implemented and the data related to the implementation of those measures; (m) based on the information referred to in paragraphs (e) to (k), the identification of (i) any effect on the fish population, (ii) any effect on the benthic invertebrate community, (iii) any effect on fish tissue from mercury; and (n) for an effect indicator with an assigned critical effect size, a statement as to whether the absolute value of the magnitude of the effect is equal to or greater than the absolute value of its critical effect size; (o) a summary of the results of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring reported under paragraph 8(e) beginning on the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations; (p) the conclusions of the biological monitoring studies, taking into account (i) the results of any studies referred to in paragraph 10(f), (ii) the presence of 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, (iii) the results of the statistical analysis conducted under paragraphs (h) and (i), and (iv) the data referred to in paragraph (l); (q) a description of how the results will impact the study design for subsequent biological monitoring studies; and (r) the date when the next biological monitoring study would be conducted, if required. (2) For the purpose of the study respecting fish population, the magnitude of the effect for an effect indicator is to be calculated using the following formula: (A – B)/B × 100 where A is (a) for the purpose of the age indicator, the mean value for the indicator in the exposure area, and (b) for the purpose of the indicators other than age, the adjusted mean value — obtained using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) statistical test method — for the indicator in the exposure area; and B is (a) for the purpose of the age indicator, the mean value for the indicator in the reference area, and (b) for the purpose of the indicators other than age, the adjusted mean value — obtained using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) — for the indicator in the reference area. (3) For the purposes of the study respecting the benthic invertebrate community, the magnitude of the effect for an effect indicator is to be calculated using the following formula: (A – B)/C where A is the mean value for the indicator in the exposure area; B is the mean value for the indicator in the reference area; and C is the standard deviation for the indicator in the reference area. DIVISION 2 Subsequent Biological Monitoring Studies Subsequent Study Designs 13 A study design for a second and any subsequent biological monitoring study shall be submitted to the Minister of the Environment at least six months before the second or subsequent biological monitoring studies are conducted or — if no such studies are required to be conducted — not later than 12 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous biological monitoring study was required to be submitted or would have been required to be submitted had any such a study been required to be conducted, and shall include (a) a summary of the information referred to in paragraph 10(a) and, if applicable, a detailed description of any changes to that information since the submission of the most recent study design; (b) the information referred to in paragraphs 10(b) to (e); (c) a summary of the results of any biological monitoring studies conducted after June 6, 2002; (d) a description of how any required study referred to in paragraph 9(1)(e) will be conducted that includes the field and laboratory methodologies that will be used to determine the cause of the effect (e) if the cause of an effect on the fish population, on fish tissue from mercury or on the benthic invertebrate community is known, the cause of the effect and any supporting data, including raw data. Conduct of Subsequent Biological Monitoring Studies 14 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the second and any subsequent biological monitoring studies shall be conducted in accordance with the study design submitted under section 13. (2) If the owner or operator is unable to follow the study design due to circumstances beyond their control, the owner or operator shall inform the Minister of the Environment without delay of those circumstances and the changes that are made to the study. Content of Subsequent Interpretative Reports 15 The second and subsequent biological monitoring studies shall be followed by an interpretative report that includes (a) for a study referred to in paragraphs 9(1)(a) to (d), the information referred to in paragraphs 12(1)(a) to (n) and (p) to (r); (b) a summary of the results of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring reported under paragraph 8(e) after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous biological monitoring study was required to be submitted; and (c) if the study design includes the description required under paragraph 13(d), (i) the cause of the effect, if determined, and any supporting data, including raw data, or (ii) if the cause of the effect was not determined, an explanation of why and a description of any steps that need to be taken in the next study to determine that cause. Submission of Subsequent Interpretative Reports 16 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the interpretative report of the second and any subsequent biological monitoring studies shall be submitted to the Minister of the Environment not later than 36 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous biological monitoring study was required to be submitted or would have been required to be submitted had there been any biological monitoring studies required to be conducted. (2) The interpretative report following a resumption of effluent discharge referred to in subsection 17(2) shall be submitted not later than 36 months after the day on which effluent discharge resumes. (3) An interpretative report is not required in respect of a 36-month period if biological monitoring studies are not required to be conducted with respect to that period. Cessation of Discharge 17 (1) The owner or operator of a mine that has ceased discharging effluent for a period of at least 36 months is not required to conduct environmental effects monitoring studies so long as the period of cessation continues. (2) The requirement to conduct environmental effects monitoring studies shall resume, as the case may be, on (a) the day on which effluent discharge resumes; or (b) the day on which a notice referred to in paragraph 32(1)(a) of these Regulations is received by the Minister of the Environment. (3) The owner or operator shall notify the Minister of the Environment in writing at least 30 days before (a) the day on which the period of cessation begins; and (b) the day on which the mine resumes effluent discharge. (4) Any biological monitoring study that began before the end of the 36-month period shall be completed and followed by an interpretative report in accordance with section 15. DIVISION 3 Final Studies General 18 (1) If an owner or operator of a mine has provided a notice referred to in paragraph 32(1)(a) of these Regulations to the Minister of the Environment, the owner or operator of a mine shall (a) if the notice is received before biological monitoring studies have commenced, conduct the biological monitoring studies and submit any interpretative report that is required in respect of those studies; and (b) if the notice is received after biological monitoring studies have commenced, in addition to submitting any interpretative report that is required in respect of those studies, submit a final study design in accordance with subsection (2), conduct final biological monitoring studies in accordance with section 19 and submit an interpretative report in accordance with section 20. (2) The final study design shall be submitted to the Minister of the Environment not later than six months after the day on which the notice referred to in paragraph 32(1)(a) of these Regulations is received. It shall include the information required under section 13. Conduct of Final Biological Monitoring Studies 19 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the final biological monitoring studies shall be conducted in accordance with the study design submitted under subsection 18(2) not earlier than six months after the day on which the final study design has been submitted. (2) If the owner or operator is unable to follow the study design due to circumstances beyond their control, the owner or operator shall inform the Minister of the Environment without delay of those circumstances and the changes that are made to the study. Content of Final Interpretative Report 20 The interpretative report shall be submitted to the Minister of the Environment not later than three years after the day on which the notice referred to in paragraph 32(1)(a) of these Regulations is received and shall include the information referred to in paragraphs 15(a) to (c). [19-1-o] Footnote 1 The unrounded increase in annualized administrative costs is estimated to be $5,789, or $40 per mine. Footnote 2 Administrative costs are presented on a per mine basis; some mining companies may own multiple mines impacted by the proposed Amendments, in which case the costs per mining company would be aggregated. Footnote 3 Acutely lethal effluent currently means an effluent at 100% concentration that kills more than 50% of the rainbow trout subjected to it over a 96-hour period when tested in accordance with the acute lethality test. The proposed Amendments would add additional requirements relating to acute lethality. Footnote 4 The proposed Amendments would amend the terminology from “tailings impoundment areas” to “mine waste disposal areas.” The latter is used throughout this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement. Footnote 5 Justice Laws Website. Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (SOR/2002-222), Schedule 2: Tailings Impoundment Areas. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-222/page-8.html#h-49. Footnote 6 Third National Assessment of Environmental Effects Monitoring Information from Metal Mines Subject to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations. 2015. Environment and Climate Change Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/esee-eem/default.asp?lang=En&n=F2078C08-1. Footnote 7 The presence or absence of an effect is considered “confirmed” when a similar type of effect or the absence of an effect has been observed in two consecutive studies. Footnote 8 An “effect” is defined as a statistical difference between specific data collected from an area exposed to mine effluent and data collected from a similar reference area that is not exposed to mine effluent. Footnote 9 “Body condition” is described as the relationship between a fish’s body weight and its length. Footnote 10 Available at www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/analys/analystb-eng.asp. Footnote 11 AMDTreat is a computer application for estimating abatement costs for pollutional mine drainage, commonly referred to as Acid Mine Drainage or AMD. AMDTreat was developed cooperatively by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS), and the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). Footnote 12 Mines that would become subject to the proposed Amendments three years after they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, or recognized closed mines that reopen after this date. Footnote 13 Assumption is based on Departmental assessments of proposed mining projects and their associated effluent quality projections. Footnote 14 Based on effluent data submitted through the Regulatory Information Submission System (RISS). Footnote 15 Information regarding effluent treatment systems was obtained either through submissions made under sections 8 and 9 of the MMER (EEM reports) or public data sources (e.g. provincial/territorial permits). Footnote 16 The incremental capital and operating costs have been assessed using various sources of cost information, including the Study to Identify BATEA for the Management and Control of Effluent Quality for Mines, MEND Report 3.50.1 (2014) : http://mend-nedem.org/wp-content/uploads/MEND3.50.1BATEAAppAD.pdf. Footnote 17 Shipping costs are assumed to be non-zero in value. Thus, the Department has assumed for this analysis that any shipping costs associated with the proposed Amendments would be 5% of total laboratory testing and analysis costs. Footnote 18 Private laboratories that conduct analysis for mines subject to the MMER were contacted to estimate costs associated with laboratory testing and analysis for additional parameters. Footnote 19 Assumption is based on the Department’s assessments of proposed mining projects and their associated effluent quality projections. Footnote 20 Cost estimates for laboratory testing and analysis were provided by laboratories in Canada in 2015. Footnote 21 Based on effluent data received from diamond mines in operation (currently in operation or on care and maintenance). The effluent data consisted of all effluent samples taken between 2010 and 2012. Footnote 22 The cost per sublethal toxicity test and the source were taken from the 2002 version of the Metal Mining EEM Guidance Document. Footnote 23 The 10-Year Review of Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Discussion Paper, Appendix 7, (December 2012) included calculations that were based on the costs above prorated by 30% and for the Lemna minor the cost was without the frond dry weight. Footnote 24 Private laboratories that conduct analysis for mines subject to the MMER were contacted to estimate cost associated with laboratory testing and analysis for additional parameters. Footnote 25 ECCC: Third National Assessment of Environmental Effects Monitoring Information from Metal Mines Subject to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, 2016. http://ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=BAD28A80-C05E-45E6-A6C9-0F2A905759C4. Footnote 26 ECCC: First National Assessment of Environmental Effects Monitoring Information from Metal Mines Subject to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, 2009. Footnote 27 ECCC: Second National Assessment of Environmental Effects Monitoring Data from Metal Mines Subject to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, 2012. http://ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=51895DE7-90F3-4C6A-8786-DECBFD681F96. Footnote 28 These include land, water, air, biosphere and ecosystem, as well as organic and inorganic minerals. Footnote 29 2 S.C.R. 74, 2004 SCC 38. Available online at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2152/index.do. Footnote 30 The base case and policy option is described above under the “Benefits and costs” section. Footnote 31 Adapted from DEFRA (2007). Footnote 32 Metal mines are already required to be non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout. Diamond mines would incrementally face non-acute lethality requirements for both Daphnia magna and rainbow trout. Footnote 33 ECCC: Third National Assessment of Environmental Effects Monitoring Information from Metal Mines Subject to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, 2016. http://ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=BAD28A80-C05E-45E6-A6C9-0F2A905759C4. Footnote 34 Jakus, Paul M., and W. Douglass Shaw. 2003. Perceived Hazard and Product Choice: An Application to Recreational Site Choice. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26(1): 77–92. MacNair, Douglas J. and William H. Desvousges. 2007. The Economics of Fish Consumption Advisories: Insights from Revealed and Stated Preference Data. Land Economics 83(4): 600-616. Footnote 35 Estimates based on site-specific data from anglers in Tennessee for PCB fish consumption advisories. Footnote 36 Information on Ontario’s fish sanctuaries is available at https://www.ontario.ca/page/open-fishing-seasons-and-fish-sanctuaries. Footnote 37 Richardson, L. and J. Loomis. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 68(5): 1535–1548. Rudd, M. A., S. Andres and M. Kilfoil. 2016. Non-use Economic Values for Little-Known Aquatic Species at Risk: Comparing Choice Experiment Results from Surveys Focused on Species, Guilds, and Ecosystems. Environmental Management 58(3): 476–490. Haefele, M., J. Loomis and L. J. Bilmes. 2016. Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs: Results of a Survey of The American Public. Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP16-024. Harvard Kennedy School. Footnote 38 Jenkins, W. A., B. C. Murray, R. A. Kramer and S. P. Faulkner. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Footnote 39 Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 2011. Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development: Chapter 5, A Study of Environmental Monitoring. Footnote 40 Study to Identify BATEA for the Management and Control of Effluent Quality for Mines, MEND Report 3.50.1 (2014): http://mend-nedem.org/wp-content/uploads/MEND3.50.1BATEAAppAD.pdf. Footnote 41 Based on historic trend data, growth rates of 3% and 5% were applied to metal and diamond mine populations to estimate administrative burden. Footnote 42 The unrounded increase in annualized administrative costs is estimated to be $5,789, or $40 per mine. Footnote 43 Administrative costs are presented on a per mine basis; some mining companies may own multiple mines impacted by the proposed Amendments; therefore, the costs per mining company would be aggregated. Footnote 44 The unrounded estimate is $10,426. Footnote 45 The unrounded estimate is -$4,368. Footnote 46 Ammonia is used as a reagent in ore processing at some mines and can be a by-product of processing at others, as in the case of cyanide use at gold mines. Effective use of the processing chemicals can minimize ammonia in the effluent stream. Footnote 47 All provinces and territories had representatives participate except for Prince Edward Island, which does not have any mines. Footnote 48 U.S. Government Publishing Office. 2017. Title 40: Protection of the Environment, Part 440 – Ore Mining and Dressing Effluent Guidelines and Standards. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=cbb3de2695690bb75aab6eb27d17ccc2&mc=true&node=pt40.32.436&rgn=div5. Footnote 49 ECCC: Third National Assessment of Environmental Effects Monitoring Information from Metal Mines Subject to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, 2016. http://ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=BAD28A80-C05E-45E6-A6C9-0F2A905759C4. Footnote 50 For more information on the Policy, please consult the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act. Government of Canada – Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2013. Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act – November 2001. http://www.ec.gc.ca/alef-ewe/default.asp?lang=En&n=D6B74D58-1 (accessed January 18, 2017). Footnote 51 SOR/2002-222 Footnote 52 Relative standard deviation at concentrations 10 times above the MDL. Footnote 53 Analyte recovery at concentrations above 10 times the MDL. Footnote 54 Relative standard deviation at concentrations 10 times above the MDL. Footnote 55 Analyte recovery at concentrations above 10 times the MDL. Footnote a S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 145(1) Footnote b S.C. 1991, c. 1, s. 12(2) Footnote c S.C. 1991, c. 1, s. 12(2) Footnote d R.S., c. F-14

This Bill does not amend any statutes.

Sign up for alerts on this Bill

Receive emails tracking this Bill's progress.

See all your alerts in a dashboard.

Set an alert with one click and you're done!