“The tendency will be for environmental regulations to become stronger in all provinces,” says George Miller, president of the Mining Association of Canada. He cites the Canadian Environmental Protection (CEP) Act of 198 8 as a sign of the times. The Act takes a much stronger approach to enforcement than was previously the case (under the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act). Essen- tially, it criminalizes things that were once simply technical violations.
“There’s no doubt that mining companies are being affected by the increased level of public concern for the environment,” Miller continues. “The larger companies have already responded by setting up environmental branches, and this trend is gaining momentum among smaller companies.”
To show that it takes environmental protection seriously, the MAC recently unveiled an Environmental Policy, to which member companies are bound. It states that “diligent application of technically proven and economically feasible environmental protection measures will be exercised, to meet the objectives of legislation and to ensure the adoption of best management practices.” The policy applies not only in Canada, but also abroad, and even in situations where environmental legislation is absent (see page 7).
In Canada the power to pass laws relating to the environment rests more with provincial governments than with their federal counterpart. “Nevertheless, I think we’re going to see a lot more muscle being flexed by the federal government in this area,” says W. C. Ferguson, director of environmental affairs for Inco Ltd. “The CEP Act is just the tip of the iceberg. We are going to see Ottawa playing a greater role managing environmental issues than they traditionally have.”
A key law in Canada pertaining to water pollution is the federal Fisheries Act. It prohibits discharge or deposition of substances harmful to fish if that discharge or deposition can contaminate water where fish might be found (the term “fish” is used broadly to include all aquatic animals). Consequently, in all mining provinces, companies must at least ensure that their liquid effluent discharges do not violate federal law.
Ferguson says he wouldn’t be surprised if provincial governments were to adopt stronger environmental legislation that would affect mining companies, as Ontario has done with its Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement, or MISA (see below).
The trend toward stiffer environmental regulations is partly explained by receptiveness to U.S. legislation, Ferguson explains. “The U.S. has led the world in terms of regulating the environment. It was the first country to spell out specifically what’s to be done with various emissions and what control levels can be applied to various contaminants.”
An example of how the U.S. has influenced environmental policy worldwide is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Ferguson says. “That innocent-looking little document spawned environmental assessment all over the world. Subsequent legislation for assessment in other countries flowed from that single Act.
The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada has responded to the new level of concern by setting up a committee to examine the various pieces of environmental legislation already in place that affect the prospecting industry. The committee will be developing a code of ethics for the mining industry, geared especially to the junior sector.
Both the PDAC and the MAC support the concept of “sustainable economic development,” as outlined in the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (more commonly known as the Bruntland Report). It defines sustainable development as “development which ensures that the utilization of resources and the environment today does not damage prospects for their use by future generations.” At the 1988 PDAC convention, managing director Dr Anthony Andrews told The Northern Miner Magazine that “the only way Canada can look after its environment is if its economy is financia lly sound. We need industrial development in order to maintain the economic resources that are needed to protect the environment.”
He said environmental lobby groups tend to do more harm than good because they are emotionally based. “Instead, they should take a more reasoned approach to the problem, as articulated in the Bruntland Report.”
Robert Van Tassel, chairman of the PDAC committee and vice-president of exploration for Dickenson Mines, agrees. He says there is danger in governments succumbing to pressure from environmental lobby groups. “The problem in this day and age is that lobbyists and activists demand things without knowing what is already in effect, and it seems things can never move fast enough for them.
“The issue of environmental protection is a bloody band wagon that the politicians are using to hide a lot of other sins,” he says. “This thing reared its head with acid rain and it has been snowballing ever since. You have to wonder, How many people are actually devoting serious thought to the problem?”
Each mining province has its own approval agencies and requirements for environmental assessment and inspection (in the territories, environmental inspection is managed by a federal agency), and these requirements vary. In British Columbia, for example, before a company can commence mining, it must be able to predict how physically and chemically stable its materials will be. Among the many things a company must consider is whether its throw-away products (tailings, waste rock, etc.) will generate acid. Also, a company is required to deposit some financial assurance to ensure that, in the event of closure, the government won’t have to pay for any of the shut-down or its long-term consequences. Ontario has recently adopted a similar requirement.
“It is undesirable that when a mine closes down, unstable materials are left behind which continue to pollute the receiving environment,” Ferguson says. He adds that, until recently, there has been general uniformity among mining provinces regarding environmental regulations and what it costs to meet them. “But MISA changed all that. This is the first time in Canadian history that such an elaborate process has been applied to so many industries. And I wouldn’t be surprised if MISA-type legislation appears in other provinces.” Enter MISA
The Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement, introduced in 1986, is aimed at eliminating toxic contaminants from all discharges into Ontario’s waterways. Under MISA monitoring regulations, dischargers in the mining industry and eight other industrial sectors must measure the types, concentrations and total amounts of toxic substances present in their effluent over a 1-year period. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment will audit this information, and limits will then be placed on toxic concentrations and total amounts for each discharger.
MISA monitoring regulations are divided into six subsections for metal and salt mines: copper/nickel/lead/ zinc; gold; silver; uranium; iron; and salt. Each group has a separate monitoring schedule that reflects the individual characteristics of those particular mines, says John Hawley, senior sector specialist for mining at the Water Resources Branch of the Ministry of the Environment. (Separate regulations apply to industrial mineral operations.)
Regulations for metal mines went to the provincial registrar in June and were expected to take effect this month. However, the 84 mining oper
ations affected by these regulations needn’t comply until five months after they become law (probably in November or December, 1989). Regulations for abatement, which probably won’t be in effect until late 1991, will make use of the “best available technology economically achievable,” Hawley says. Concentration and loading limits will be set for each industrial sector.
The program is controversial, especially in the mining industry, because of the significant costs involved for small-to-medium-size operations. The total estimated cost for metal mines ranges from $19 million to $32 million. The average cost per mining operation ranges from about $220,000 to $380,000.
For gold mining operations, the sector upon which MISA is expected to have the greatest impact, the capital and operating cost of monitoring effluent from a single source is estimated to range from $72,860 to $171,560 a year. Some companies have more than one source to monitor. Some gold mining companies which reported relatively low profits in 1988 and which have more than one sampling point to monitor will be hardest hit. They include Giant Yellowknife Mines which has five sources of effluent in Ontario, Canamax Resources also with five and Muscocho Explorations with three. For large companies, such as Inco Ltd. Noranda Inc., Rio Algom, Placer Dome and Falconbridge Ltd., the added capital and operating costs will be insignificant compared to annual capital expenditures.
Operations engaged only in exploration and development are exempt from the new regulations, as are those that discharge fewer than 50,000 L per day of total effluent (averaged over a 30-day period).
“The sampling costs alone under MISA represent a pretty strong financial burden for a small mine,” says Miller, who agrees with Ferguson that other provinces may implement similar programs. “So one could question whether the program was thought out in terms of cost-effectiveness.”
Adds Ferguson: “This unusual, complicated and very expensive program involves state-of-the-art sampling that only a handful of labs in Canada can perform. Most people in the mining industry don’t know what’s involved under MISA. Before the 1-year sampling period is over, a lot of eyes will be opened wider than they are now.”
Chemical monitoring will be performed on three different levels:
* On a 3-times-per-week basis, most metal mining companies in Ontario must monitor about 10 parameters, such as PH and suspended solids.
* On a monthly basis, most com– panies must monitor fewer than 10 parameters, such as phenolic resins (formaldehyde, for example) and ammonia- related compounds.
* On a quarterly basis and on virtually all effluents, all companies must monitor about 200 parameters. Most of these parameters are complex organics. In addition, all quarterly samples are subject to toxicity tests that involve rainbow trout and a freshwater crustacean known as daphnia magna.
Also, a dioxin analysis is required on each effluent, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) must be monitored on a quarterly basis at those plants that use or store PCBS.
“Most of the expenditures involved are due to the quarterly sampling, which will involve more than 100 compounds, mostly organic,” says Hawley. “Traditionally, most mines have not had to analyse for any of these. Nor have most mines had to perform any toxicity tests on their own; they will now have to do this four times a year. Cost estimates range from low to high, depending on whether companies do the monitoring work themselves or hire consultants to do it for them.
“The biggest change being brought about by MISA is that we (the Ontario Ministry of Environment) will have much tighter analytical controls on samples. Instead of sampling on the basis of, say, one-tenth or one-half of a part per million, which is common now, companies will have to sample in the range of, say, 50 parts per billion for metals, etc. So MISA will require greater precision in measurements and, consequently, greater expenditures over this 1-year monitoring period.”
According to Ferguson, the high costs are a function of the high number of mine sites that have to be sampled (84 are listed in the category of metal and salt mines). “You have to take your shoes and socks off to count the number of mines in Ontario.”
A member of the Canadian Environmental Research Council, Ferguson is himself a supporter of environmental assessment. But he warns that the assessment process can actually deter activity if it is made too complex, expensive and time-consuming. “There’s a difference between what’s necessary to know and what’s nice to know,” he says.
Van Tassel agrees that, while keeping waterways clean is important, it may not be necessary to sample for all the elements listed under MISA regulations. “This expensive monitoring process will put a significant burden on junior companies,” he stresses. “They probably will have to go to consulting groups to start them off in this direction, because not every company can afford to set up its own environmental department.”
One of the medium-sized companies affected by MISA is Muscocho Explorations. Steven Brunelle, vice-president of corporate affairs for that company, says MISA is unfair for many operations. “It’s expensive enough as it is, bringing new projects into production,” Brunelle says. “The last thing the mining industry needs is to have to spend money on this program. It’s probably going to cost us (Muscocho) a significant amount in terms of increased monitoring of effluent from our tailings facilities.
“When it gets to the point where a company has to analyse for everything under the sun over an entire year, it becomes excessive and absolutely ridiculous — especially if it can be proved, in fairly short order, that a project does not generate any of the contaminants that it must continue to sample for.”
Regardless of complaints from various companies, the mining industry has no choice but to comply with the MISA regulations. The mandatory effluent- monitoring regulation for metal mines will be enforced under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. Violators face fines of up to $50,000 per day, although what constitutes a violation has not yet been determined.
At Citadel Gold Mines’ operation near Wawa, Ont., Mill Superintendent Raymond Gagnon is also lamenting the extra work and costs that MISA will entail. Although no mine closures are expected to result from the added capital and operating costs required by each operation, Gagnon says the financial burden on small companies may be so great that MISA will actually deter some small mines from starting up. “I don’t think we’ll really know what the full impact will be until the preliminary work is done and everyone has started doing their test work,” Gagnon says. “But, anticipating what will be required of companies like Citadel, we have already hired an environmental technician.”
When asked whether MISA may result in more mining companies setting up environmental departments, the mac’s George Miller responds:
“Mining companies should have such departments anyway. It’s part of good management that companies be able to ensure that there are no unexpected spills or releases. Under the CEP Act, the chief executive of a company can be put in jail if he is found to be negligent — in other words, if he does not have the proper policies and procedures in place to ensure that things are done right. “All mining companies need expertise in environmental assessment, just as they need expertise in safety. So companies should staff up and organize for it.”
Ferguson agrees strongly: “I tell people that if they don’t do assessment work, they’re out of their minds. It’s simply good engineering.”
]]>
Be the first to comment on "MINING GOES GREEN"