24-MMP-A6 Mining and the Environment · May 2017
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
EGBC National Exam — Mining and Mineral Processing Engineering, 09-MMP-A6 Mining and the Environment, 2017-May. 3 hours duration, open book (any Casio or Sharp approved calculator permitted). SIX questions are printed on the paper; FIVE questions constitute a complete exam paper, and only the first five questions as they appear in the answer book are marked. Most questions require an essay-format answer; clarity and organization are explicitly assessed.
Reference texts: International Network for Acid Prevention (INAP), Global Acid Rock Drainage (GARD) Guide (ARD prediction, static and kinetic testing, sampling programs, prevention/treatment methods); Price, W.A., MEND Report 1.20.1, Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials (1997/2009) (acid-base accounting, NPR screening); Government of Canada, Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER, the current name for the exam's "Metal Mining Effluent Regulations") under the Fisheries Act, s.36(3); Government of Canada, Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999) and Impact Assessment Act (successor to the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act named in the exam); Species at Risk Act (2002); Ontario, Mining Act, R.S.O. 1990, and O.Reg. 153/04 (Records of Site Condition, under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act); Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), duty-to-consult and Indigenous engagement guidance for resource projects; Vick, S.G., Planning, Design, and Analysis of Tailings Dams (1990) (upstream/centerline/downstream construction, disposal practices); Canadian Dam Association (CDA), Dam Safety Guidelines (tailings impoundment construction); BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia (current edition) (closure planning, revegetation, mine water management); ATSDR, Toxicological Profiles for arsenic and mercury.
Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.
| Act/Regulation | Overall objective | Year | Custodian agency | Relation to mining & the environment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) | Prevent pollution and protect the environment and human health by regulating toxic substances, their release, and environmental emergencies across Canada. | 1999 (re-enacted; original 1988) | Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) | Governs listing and control of toxic substances (some mining reagents and metal releases can be CEPA-listed), National Pollutant Release Inventory reporting of mine air/water releases, and federal environmental emergency planning requirements for facilities storing hazardous substances. |
| Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (now the Impact Assessment Act) | Require a formal federal assessment of a project's likely environmental, health, social and economic effects before it can proceed, and identify mitigation and monitoring commitments. | 2012 (original CEAA 1992; replaced by the Impact Assessment Act in 2019) | Impact Assessment Agency of Canada | Any major new mine or significant expansion is a designated project requiring federal impact assessment; the process is where Fisheries Act habitat compensation, Species at Risk mitigation, and duty-to-consult obligations for a mine are formally consolidated and conditioned. |
| Species at Risk Act (SARA) | Prevent the extirpation or extinction of wildlife species and provide for the recovery of species at risk and their critical habitat. | 2002 | Environment and Climate Change Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service), with Fisheries and Oceans Canada for aquatic species | A mine footprint or its water/air emissions that overlap the range of a listed species (or critical habitat) triggers survey, avoidance/mitigation, and sometimes offset requirements woven into permitting and impact assessment. |
| The Mining Act (Ontario) | Provide the legal framework for mineral exploration, mine development, and mine closure/rehabilitation in Ontario, balancing resource development with public and environmental protection. | R.S.O. 1990 (originally enacted 1873; substantially modernized 1990 and by subsequent amendments) | Ontario Ministry of Mines | Requires an approved closure plan and financial assurance before mine development can begin, and sets rehabilitation standards that directly govern how waste rock, tailings, and disturbed land must be reclaimed in Ontario. |
| O.Reg. 153/04 (Records of Site Condition, under Ontario's Environmental Protection Act) | Set the standards and process for assessing and remediating contaminated land to a condition suitable for its intended use, formalized in a filed Record of Site Condition. | 2004 | Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks | Applies where a mine site or associated facility is redeveloped or its land use changes (including post-closure), requiring a documented environmental site assessment and, where needed, remediation of soil/groundwater contamination before the site condition record can be filed. |
i) Section and administering agency (2 marks). Subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish, or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance may enter such water. This provision is jointly administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada, which develops and enforces the effluent-quality regulations (including the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations, MDMER) made under it, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which retains authority over fish and fish habitat protection matters under the same Act.
ii) The three conditions for Authority to Deposit without a transitional authorization (3 marks).
| # | Statement (summarized) | Answer | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Any concentration of deleterious substance permitted if disposal area is confined and not fish-frequented water | True | Section 36(3)'s prohibition applies specifically to water "frequented by fish"; a disposal area genuinely confined by anthropogenic or natural structures and disconnected from fish habitat falls outside that definition, so the deposit prohibition (and MDMER concentration limits, which regulate deposit TO fish-frequented water) does not apply to it – though other federal/provincial requirements may still govern the facility. |
| 2 | Effluent may be diluted with water/other effluent before deposit to meet limits | False | The MDMER explicitly prohibits using dilution as a means of achieving compliance with the prescribed concentration limits – compliance must be achieved through treatment, not by adding clean water to lower the measured concentration. |
| 3 | Must identify and report each final discharge point in writing (location, design/maintenance, receiving water body) | True | This matches the MDMER's notification requirements for final discharge points, which feed the Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program and give the authorization officer the information needed to assess compliance. |
| 4 | Acute lethality testing on a grab sample required monthly at each final discharge point | False | The MDMER sets acute lethality testing frequency by effluent characteristics and flow category rather than a flat monthly requirement for every mine – many mines test quarterly, with monthly testing reserved for higher-risk or larger-volume dischargers; "monthly for every mine" overstates the general rule. |
| 5 | EPS 1/RM/14 is the required Daphnia magna acute lethality reference method | True | EPS 1/RM/14 is Environment Canada's Biological Test Method for acute lethality to Daphnia magna and is one of the two reference methods (alongside EPS 1/RM/13 for rainbow trout) the MDMER requires for effluent acute lethality testing. |
