24-MMP-A6 Mining and the Environment · May 2018
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, 2018-May. 3 hours duration, open book (any non-communicating 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 a concise, point-form-acceptable answer rather than a full essay. Every question is solved in full below (including all six, not just the five a candidate would normally submit) so this set also serves as complete study material.
Reference texts: Government of Canada, Fisheries Act and the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations (MDMER, the current name for the exam's "Metal Mining Effluent Regulations"); Government of Canada, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA); Government of Canada, Impact Assessment Act (successor to the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act named in the exam); Government of Canada, Species at Risk Act; Government of Ontario, Mining Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.14, and O.Reg. 153/04 (brownfields), O.Reg. 560/94 (mine development and closure), O.Reg. 561/94 (financial assurance); International Network for Acid Prevention (INAP), Global Acid Rock Drainage (GARD) Guide; Price, W.A., MEND Report 1.20.1, Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials (1997/2009); Canadian Dam Association (CDA), Dam Safety Guidelines (2013/2019); Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM, 2020); Vick, S.G., Planning, Design, and Analysis of Tailings Dams (1990); ATSDR, Toxicological Profiles for arsenic and mercury; BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia.
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.
| Impact | Environmental matrix | Mitigation measures |
|---|---|---|
| Acid rock drainage / metal leaching from waste rock and tailings | Water, sediment | Static/kinetic ARD testing to segregate potentially acid-generating material; encapsulation covers; water treatment; progressive reclamation. |
| Habitat loss and land disturbance from the mine footprint (pit, waste dumps, tailings facility, roads) | Soil, terrestrial habitat | Minimize footprint, avoid sensitive/critical habitat in siting, progressive reclamation, offset/compensation habitat. |
| Dust and blasting emissions | Air | Water/chemical dust suppression on haul roads, blast timing and design, ambient air monitoring. |
| Altered surface/groundwater hydrology from dewatering and water management | Water | Water balance modelling, adaptive management of pumping rates, maintaining environmental flows to downstream aquatic habitat. |
| Loss of traditional land use and access affecting Indigenous communities (hunting, fishing, gathering of country foods) | Water, soil, air (via contaminant pathway into food sources) | Early and ongoing consultation, impact-benefit agreements, joint environmental monitoring programs, access accommodation. |
Of these five, acid rock drainage is typically the most severe and longest-lived impact – left unmanaged it can persist for centuries and is the dominant driver of mine environmental liability, whereas dust and altered hydrology are generally localized and reversible once operations cease or mitigation is applied. The social impact on Indigenous traditional land use is fundamentally environmental (it operates through contamination or loss of the land/water/food resources the community relies on) and, while harder to quantify on an environmental matrix, is frequently the most consequential to project success because it engages constitutionally protected rights (see Part C).
Key stakeholders: Indigenous nations and communities (rights- and title-holders), local communities and municipalities, provincial and federal regulators, mine employees and contractors, shareholders/investors and lenders, environmental non-government organizations, and downstream water users.
Aboriginal and Treaty Rights are constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and include established or asserted rights to hunt, fish, trap and otherwise use traditional territory, as well as (where applicable) rights defined in a modern or historic treaty. A mining project that may adversely affect these rights – through land disturbance, water contamination, or restricted access – triggers the Crown's constitutional duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate the affected Nation(s), a duty that in practice is discharged largely through the proponent's engagement activities.
Meaningful engagement means consultation that begins early (before key decisions are locked in), is ongoing through the project lifecycle, is culturally appropriate, and is adequately resourced (capacity funding) so the community can genuinely participate rather than simply be informed after the fact. Failing to engage meaningfully risks project delays and legal challenges (including injunctions), loss of the project's social licence to operate, reputational and financing consequences, and – in the most serious cases – permit refusal or project cancellation, as has occurred on several Canadian mining and resource projects where consultation was found inadequate.
