ARCHIVED — Vol. 146, No. 6 — March 14, 2012

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

 

Registration

SOR/2012-22 March 2, 2012

FISHERIES ACT

Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations

P.C. 2012-215 March 1, 2012

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to subsections 36(5) and 38(9) of the Fisheries Act (see footnote a), hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE METAL MINING
EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. The definitions “new mine” and “reopened mine” in subsection 1(1) of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (see footnote 1) are amended by replacing “the date of registration of these Regulations” with “June 6, 2002”.

2. (1) Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Regulations is amended by replacing “these Regulations are registered” with “June 6, 2002”.

(2) Subsection 2(2) of the Regulations is amended by replacing “the registration of these Regulations” with “June 6, 2002”.

3. Subsection 14(1.1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(1.1) The owner or operator who is required to conduct an acute lethality test under paragraph (1)(b) is not required to conduct that test if they notify without delay an inspector, or a person referred to in section 29, that the deposit is an acutely lethal effluent.

4. (1) The portion of subsection 16(3) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is amended by replacing “the date of registration of these Regulations” with “June 6, 2002”.

(2) Paragraph 16(3)(c) of the Regulations is amended by replacing “the registration of these Regulations” with “June 6, 2002”.

5. Paragraph 19(2)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. (b) determined by using a monitoring system that provides a continuous measure of the volume of effluent deposited.

6. Paragraph 30(2)(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. a) la mention de tout rejet irrégulier qui pourrait se produire à la mine et entraîner des dommages ou des risques réels de dommages pour le poisson ou son habitat ou pour l’utilisation par l’homme du poisson, ainsi que l’identification de ces risques ou dommages;

7. (1) The portion of subsection 34(4) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is amended by replacing “these Regulations are registered” with “June 6, 2002”.

(2) The portion of subsection 34(5) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is amended by replacing “these Regulations are registered” with “June 6, 2002”.

8. Subsection 39(1) of the Regulations is amended by replacing “the day on which these Regulations are registered” with “June 6, 2002”.

9. The portion of items 1 to 13 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations in column 2 is amended by replacing “Division” with “Directorate”.

10. The definition “effect on fish tissue” in section 1 of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

“effect on fish tissue” means measurements of concentrations of total mercury that exceed 0.5 μg/g wet weight in fish tissue taken in an exposure area and that are statistically different from and higher than the concentrations of total mercury in fish tissue taken in a reference area. (effet sur les tissus de poissons)

11. Subsection 4(1) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

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:

  1. (a) aluminum;

  2. (b) cadmium;

  3. (c) iron;

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

  5. (e) molybdenum;

  6. (f) selenium;

  7. (g) ammonia; and

  8. (h) nitrate.

12. (1) The portion of paragraph 7(1)(c) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations before subparagraph (iii) is replaced by the following:

  1. (c) recording the concentration of the substances set out in paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (h) and,

    1. (i) in the case of effluent that is deposited into fresh water, recording the pH, hardness, alkalinity and electrical conductivity of the water samples,

    2. (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

(2) Paragraph 7(1)(d) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. (d) recording the concentration of the deleterious substances set out in column 1 of Schedule 4, but

    1. (i) not recording the concentrations of cyanide if that substance is not used as a process reagent within the operations area, and

    2. (ii) not recording the concentrations of radium 226 if the conditions of subsection 13(2) of these Regulations are met; and

13. Paragraph 17(g) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. (g) a summary of the results of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring reported under paragraph 8(e) since the day on which the mine becomes subject to section 7 of these Regulations;

14. Paragraph 21(1)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. (a) the information referred to in paragraphs 17(a) to (f) and (h) to (j);

  2. (a.1) a summary of the results of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring reported under paragraph 8(e) since the day on which the interpretative report of the previous biological monitoring study was required to be submitted; and

15. (1) Paragraph 22(2)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is amended by replacing “24” with “36”.

(2) Paragraph 22(2)(c) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. (c) not later than 36 months after the day on which the interpretative report of the previous study was required to be submitted, if the results of the previous two consecutive biological monitoring studies indicate a similar type of effect on fish populations, on fish tissue or on the benthic invertebrate community, and if the magnitude or geographic extent of the effect or cause of the effect is not known.

16. (1) Paragraph 23(1)(c) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is amended by replacing “the date of registration of these Regulations” with “June 6, 2002”.

(2) Paragraph 23(1)(d) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

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

17. Paragraph 25(a) of Schedule 5 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  1. (a) the information referred to in paragraphs 17(a) to (f) and (h);

    (a.1) a summary of the results of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring reported under paragraph 8(e) since the day on which the interpretative report of the previous biological monitoring study was required to be submitted;

COMING INTO FORCE

18. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Background

The Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) are regulations made under the Fisheries Act that regulate the quality of effluent discharged from Canadian metal mines into waters frequented by fish. The MMER came into force on December 6, 2002, and in 2010 applied to about 100 facilities across Canada. The MMER impose limits on releases of arsenic, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, zinc, radium 226 and total suspended solids. The MMER also impose limits on the pH of effluent and prohibit the discharge of effluent that is acutely lethal to fish.

Mines subject to the MMER are required to conduct Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) in the water bodies into which effluent is discharged, which are referred to as “exposure areas” as well as in control or “reference areas.” The goal of EEM is to evaluate the effects of mining effluent on exposure areas, specifically on fish, fish habitat, and the use of fisheries resources. Environment Canada uses EEM results to help evaluate the effectiveness of pollution prevention and control technologies, practices and programs within the metal mining sector. The results are used to determine if better protection of fish, fish habitat and fisheries is required.

Environmental Effects Monitoring requirements are described in Schedule 5 of the MMER, which is divided into two parts. Part 1 of the Schedule requires periodic effluent characterization, water quality monitoring and sublethal toxicity testing. Part 2 of the Schedule requires biological monitoring studies including a fish population study, a fish tissue study when mercury is present in the effluent under specified conditions, and a benthic invertebrate community study.

Issue and objectives

Environment Canada established the Metal Mining EEM Review Team (the Review Team) in December 2005. The mandate of the Review Team was to review the experiences and results of the EEM program from the first phase of EEM studies conducted between 2003 and 2005, and, based on this review, to provide recommendations to Environment Canada for improving the program. The Review Team included representatives of Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the mining industry, environmental non-government organizations and Aboriginal groups.

The Review Team identified key issues, developed recommendations to address these issues, and submitted the Metal Mining Environmental Effects Monitoring Review Team Report to Environment Canada for consideration in August 2007. This report included recommendations for possible amendments to the EEM provisions of the MMER, as well as other recommendations related to EEM that have been or are being addressed separate from these amendments.

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR) reviewed the MMER following the amendments that came into force in October 2006 and made a number of recommendations to improve the language with respect to the English and French versions of the MMER.

Another matter arose related to the reporting timeframes for the submission of some EEM interpretive reports. Industry representatives expressed concern that the 24-month timeline for the submission of some interpretive reports was too short.

The primary objective of the Regulations Amending Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (the Amendments) is to improve the environmental effects monitoring (EEM) provisions of the MMER. The Amendments also include some administrative changes to improve linguistic consistency and readability of the MMER and to reflect Environment Canada’s current organizational structure.

Description

The following amendments are being made in order to improve the EEM provisions of the MMER.

Amendments to address recommendations of the EEM Review Team

1. The definition of an “effect on fish tissue” is important to the assessment of whether the usability of fisheries resources has been affected. The Amendments change the definition of an “effect on fish tissue” to clarify that for there to be an effect on fish tissue, the concentration of total mercury in tissue of fish from the exposure area must be

  • greater than 0.5 μg/g (this is changed from 0.45 μg/g to be consistent with Health Canada fish consumption guidelines for mercury); and
  • statistically different from and higher than the concentration of total mercury in tissue of fish from the reference area.

This amendment responds to initial EEM results that showed that at a small number of sites, mercury concentrations in tissue of fish from the reference area were higher than those in tissue of fish in the exposure area. In such cases, the higher mercury concentrations in the tissue of fish in the reference area were defined as an effect. This was not appropriate in the context of the objective of the EEM program, since higher concentrations of mercury in the reference area cannot be attributed to effluent from the mine.

2. The Amendments add selenium and electrical conductivity to the list of parameters (see footnote 2) that must be monitored four times per calendar year as part of effluent characterization and water quality monitoring. (see footnote 3) Selenium is linked to potential effects on fish reproduction and development and is known to be present in the effluent from some metal mines. Requiring monitoring of selenium at all metal mines will provide information on the extent to which selenium occurs in metal mining effluent.

Electrical conductivity measures the amount of dissolved ions in water and is routinely monitored at most sites, but was not previously reported under the MMER. The reporting of electrical conductivity will assist in the interpretation of EEM results, particularly in the context of identifying the location and concentration of effluent within exposure areas.

Measurement of electrical conductivity as part of water quality monitoring will be required in freshwater and estuarine environments but not in marine environments because the high salinity of such environments results in very high electrical conductivity, making such measurements meaningless. Estuarine environments tend to be highly variable, and as a result, the EEM program requires the measurement of all parameters for both freshwater and marine environments within estuarine environments.

Measurements of electrical conductivity are temperature dependant. To facilitate standardization of results, the Amendments also add a requirement to monitor the temperature of effluent as part of effluent characterization. For water quality monitoring, there is already a requirement to record temperature.

3. The MMER allow mines, other than uranium mines, to reduce the frequency of testing of radium 226 in effluent from a weekly to a quarterly basis if 10 consecutive test results show that radium 226 levels are less than 10% of the authorized monthly mean concentration. The Amendments will also allow these mines to be exempt from monitoring radium 226 as part of water quality monitoring as long as this condition is met. If this condition is no longer met, then the mine must resume weekly testing of radium 226 in effluent and will also be required to resume the monitoring of radium 226 as part of water quality monitoring.

4. The Amendments remove the requirement in Schedule 5, paragraph 17(g) and referred to in paragraphs 21(1)(a) and 25(a) to compare the results of sublethal toxicity testing with results of biological monitoring studies to determine if there is a correlation. These comparisons did not lead to meaningful results on a consistent basis.

In place of the previous requirement in paragraph 17(g), the Amendments introduce a new requirement to include, as part of each interpretive report for biological monitoring studies, a summary of the results of effluent characterization, water quality monitoring and sublethal toxicity testing. (see footnote 4) Prior to the Amendments, many mines voluntarily included such a summary in each interpretive report, but this requirement will ensure that this summary is provided in all cases, aiding in the interpretation of the results of biological monitoring studies.

Amendment to extend the timeframe for the submission of interpretive reports

5. The Amendments will extend the timeframe for the submission of interpretive reports for the determination of the magnitude and geographic extent of effects and for investigation of cause of effects from 24 to 36 months.

Prior to the Amendments, the reporting timeframe for most interpretive reports was 36 months. However, the reporting timeframe was 24 months for interpretive reports for the determination of the magnitude and geographic extent of effects, and for investigation of cause of effects. Within the specified timeframe, a mine must submit a study design to Environment Canada, complete the necessary studies and prepare and submit the interpretive report. Following submission of the study design, Environment Canada officials review the study design and provide input to the mine before the studies are undertaken. As noted by industry representatives, the 24-month reporting timeframe was inadequate to allow for these steps to be appropriately undertaken. This amendment will ensure that there is enough time for these steps to be appropriately undertaken.

This change in reporting timeframe will also harmonize with the reporting timeframes for biological monitoring similar to EEM which is required by other jurisdictions, such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, northern water boards and several provinces.

Administrative changes to improve linguistic consistency and readability of the MMER

6. Several administrative changes to the Regulations have been made to improve the linguistic consistency and readability of the MMER. References to the date of registration have been replaced with “June 6, 2002,” which was the date of registration of the MMER. Also, Schedule 1 has been amended to update the identification of authorization officers to reflect Environment Canada’s current organizational structure. Minor changes to the wording of paragraphs 22(2)(c) and 23(1)(d) will make the wording of these paragraphs consistent with that in Schedule 5, paragraph 19(1)(d).

Amendments to address comments by the SJCSR

7. Additional changes to address comments made by the SJCSR have been made to provide greater consistency between the English and French versions of the regulatory text. Minor changes have been made to the English and French versions of subsection 14(1.1), the English and French version of paragraph 19(2)(b) and the French version of paragraph 30(2)(a).

Benefits and costs

Benefits

Environment

The Amendments may have small but positive impacts upon the Canadian environment by improving the collection and quality of data as well as the interpretation of results. The requirement to monitor electrical conductivity and selenium as part of effluent characterization and water quality monitoring will provide information and may assist in identifying the cause of effects on fish populations.

Government

The Amendments make several changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the MMER, including the EEM requirements, and will ensure consistency between the MMER and other federal standards and jurisdictional requirements as well as the English and French versions of the MMER.

Industry

The Amendments offer small cost savings at some impacted sites. The exemption from monitoring radium 226 as part of water quality monitoring is expected to generate savings of less than $1,000 per year for those mines which meet the specified conditions for this exemption. Based on the number of mines currently meeting these conditions, it is estimated that the savings to the sector will be about $60,000 per year.

The amendment to the definition of an “effect on fish tissue” is expected to result in a small cost savings at the two mines in Canada where higher mercury concentrations have been reported in fish from the reference area. In these instances, industry will no longer be required to investigate the cause of higher mercury concentrations in the reference area since this will no longer be defined as an effect.

Finally, some mines may realize small savings because of the longer timeline to submit some interpretive reports (36 months versus 24 months). However, this extra time is expected to be used to undertake more complex studies to investigate the causes of effects, which could reduce savings and enhance the quality of their submissions.

Costs

Industry

The Amendments will result in some small costs for industry related to the additional requirements to test for selenium concentrations and electrical conductivity. The total costs to the sector are difficult to estimate without information on which mines currently monitor selenium concentrations as part of their analysis of effluent and water samples. However, selenium concentrations can be measured as part of a standard analytical package available at commercial laboratories. Mines not currently measuring selenium will be able to do so at an estimated cost of no more than $160 per year.

Electrical conductivity is measured at the time of sample collection with a hand held instrument. Since all consulting companies in this field of work routinely use such instruments, there will be no additional cost associated with monitoring electrical conductivity. Some consulting companies may charge a nominal fee to report this information to their clients.

Government

A compliance and enforcement regime is already in place for the MMER. There will be one-time costs to government of approximately $5,000 for updates to the on-line data entry system for reporting of MMER data. This update is necessary as a result of the new requirement for the reporting of data on selenium and electrical conductivity as part of effluent characterization and water quality monitoring.

Conclusion

The Amendments will result in small costs to the sector and government which should be offset by cost savings due to the exemption of radium 226 from water quality monitoring, the extended reporting timeframes for some interpretive reports, and the revised definition of an “effect on fish tissue.” Given that the Amendments will also improve the collection and quality of data as well as the interpretation of EEM results, it is expected that the benefits to society at large will outweigh the costs.

Consultation

Metal Mining EEM Review Team

There were significant consultations on the EEM program which led to the development of amendments 1 to 4, as described above. As previously described, Environment Canada established the multi-stakeholder Metal Mining EEM Review Team in 2005, and the Review Team submitted a report to Environment Canada for consideration in 2007.

Consultations during the development of the proposed amendments

Environment Canada first introduced the proposed amendments in December 2009 in a presentation at a workshop on investigation of cause in the metal mining EEM program. The workshop was hosted by Environment Canada and was attended by almost 100 people, including representatives of other federal government departments, industry, consultants, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), and Aboriginal groups.

Environment Canada subsequently held a consultation session on the proposed Amendments in June 2010 to inform stakeholders about the proposed Amendments and give them an opportunity to provide comments. Participants included representatives of national Aboriginal organizations, ENGOs and the mining industry, as well as representatives of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. In addition, the owners/operators of all mines subject to the MMER and all participants in the December 2009 workshop were provided with written information on the proposed Amendments and invited to submit comments.

Comments from the consultation session and the six written submissions which were received, together with Environment Canada’s responses to those comments, are summarized below.

Comments on proposed amendments to the EEM provisions of the MMER

General comments

  • An industry representative commented that some recommendations from the 2007 Metal Mining Environmental Effects Monitoring Review Team Report have not yet been addressed.

Environment Canada responded that the proposed amendments are addressing recommendations of the Metal Mining Environmental Effects Monitoring Review Team Report that were specific to possible changes to the MMER. Environment Canada is working to address other recommendations of the Review Team which have not yet been addressed, including finalizing revisions to the Metal Mining Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Technical Guidance Document, also referred to as the Technical Guidance Document. (see footnote 5)

Definition of an “effect on fish tissue”

  • Some Aboriginal and ENGO representatives expressed concern that the new proposed concentration (0.5 µg/g as opposed to 0.45 µg/g) would be less stringent and that the limit would not be protective of fish or other animals that eat fish.

Environment Canada responded that 0.5 µg/g is the standard set by Health Canada for human consumption of fish. Harmonization with Health Canada to have one standard for human health consumption across the federal government is important to provide a uniform and consistent standard for Canadians with respect to the safety of fish for human consumption.

Environment Canada also noted that this definition is specifically tied to the assessment of the usability of fish for human consumption. Thus, the focus is on the limit established by Health Canada. The effects of mine effluent on fish are assessed through the requirement to conduct a fish survey as specified in Schedule 5 of the MMER.

  • An Aboriginal representative noted that the concentration of mercury in fish tissue increases with age and size. This should be reflected by adding reference to the sampling methodology on how measurements are made, which should be on the largest predator fish in the body of water in question.

Environment Canada responded that the Technical Guidance Document recommends sampling methodologies and sample sizes for conducting studies of fish tissue.

Addition of selenium and electrical conductivity to the list substances for effluent characterization and water quality monitoring

  • An Aboriginal representative noted that measurements of electrical conductivity would not be meaningful in water bodies with higher salinity, such as estuarine or marine environments.

Environment Canada acknowledged that it is correct that measurements of electrical conductivity in saline waters are not meaningful. In response to this comment, the changes to Schedule 5, paragraph 7(1)(c) were drafted such that measurements of electrical conductivity will not be required in marine environments. These measurements will however be required in estuarine environments due to the highly variable nature of some estuarine environments, particularly with respect to salinity. This approach is consistent with overall approach of the EEM requirements with respect to water quality monitoring in estuarine environments, in which all parameters for freshwater and marine environments are to be monitored.

  • An industry representative recommended that guidance be provided regarding whether field or laboratory measurements of electrical conductivity should be reported and how electrical conductivity should be standardized for temperature.

Environment Canada agreed and in response to this comment, the Amendments include a requirement to measure the temperature of effluent when samples are collected for effluent characterization. There is already a requirement to measure temperature as part of water quality monitoring. Environment Canada also stated that the Technical Guidance Document would be updated to address the standardization of electrical conductivity measurements.

  • An ENGO representative supported the addition of selenium but recommended that Environment Canada develop a process to set a regulatory limit for selenium.

Environment Canada responded that the intent of the proposed amendments is to provide data on the occurrence of selenium in metal mining effluent across Canada. If Environment Canada considers a future addition of selenium to the list of deleterious substances as defined in the MMER, Environment Canada would consider information from all relevant sources.

Correlation of sublethal toxicity results with field results

  • The Amendments will remove paragraph 17(g) of Schedule 5 which asks for a comparison of results of biological monitoring and sublethal toxicity testing to determine if there is a correlation. The demonstration of correlation was not leading to reliable results on a consistent basis. One ENGO supported removing the requirement to show a correlation but did not support the complete removal of this paragraph, arguing that future advances may make such a comparison useful. One Aboriginal representative noted that the complete removal of paragraph 17(g) did not seem to be a satisfactory regulatory solution.

Environment Canada responded that instead it will ask for a summary of effluent characterization, sublethal toxicity testing and water quality monitoring in each EEM interpretive report. This summary will be helpful in interpreting biological monitoring results and will facilitate a weight of evidence approach without the need to demonstrate correlation between these test results.

  • An Aboriginal representative recommended that this requirement be replaced with a requirement focused on the results of biological monitoring that might subsequently require some form of toxicity testing.

Environment Canada noted that sublethal toxicity testing is among the many tools that can be used as part of investigation of cause studies. Due to the potential scope of such studies, it is not possible to prescribe what tools must be used in such studies.

Comments on a “similar type of effect”

  • An industry representative and an ENGO representative commented that what is meant by a “similar type of effect” needs to be defined.

Environment Canada responded that the term “similar type of effect” means data showing a significant difference between exposure and reference areas, in two successive field studies, for the same parameter and is in the same direction from zero. For example, if the observed effect is on the size of the livers of fish and the livers are smaller in fish in the exposure area than the reference area in two consecutive monitoring phases, that would be considered a “similar type of effect.”

  • An ENGO representative commented that paragraph 23(1)(d) refers to “an effect” and should also be amended to refer to “a similar type of effect.”

Environment Canada agreed with this comment. This text has been amended in paragraph 23(1)(d) as well as in paragraph 22(c).

Comments on the proposed EEM Amendments regarding the period of 24 months versus 36 months

  • An ENGO representative supported this proposed amendment but recommended that Environment Canada require that available analytical data be submitted as soon as it is available to limit further delays associated with reviews.

Environment Canada responded that reviews of interpretive reports conducted by Environment Canada officials consider the interpretive reports and associated data together. Therefore, there will be no benefit to obtaining and reviewing the analytical data in advance.

  • An ENGO representative asked if decisions about the reporting timeframe could be made by Environment Canada’s authorization officer on a site specific basis rather than having the proposed amendment apply in all cases.

Environment Canada responded by reiterating that a 24-month timeframe is inadequate to allow for all of the necessary steps to be appropriately undertaken. Introducing flexibility in this manner would also provide less certainty for regulated facilities with respect to required reporting timeframes, and would not address concerns about harmonization with other jurisdictions.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The Amendments come into force on the day they are registered.

In advance of the coming into force of the Amendments, Environment Canada will ensure that all staff involved in the implementation and enforcement of the MMER are aware of the Amendments, their intent, and the associated implementation plans. Immediately following the coming into force of the Amendments, letters will be sent to the owners and operators of all mines subject to the MMER providing them with detailed information about the Amendments.

Immediately following the coming into force, the necessary updates to Environment Canada’s electronic reporting system for submission of MMER data will be implemented to allow for the reporting of selenium, electrical conductivity and the temperature of effluent.

The Amendments will not impact the manner in which the MMER are enforced. Compliance will be enforced by Environment Canada and compliance and enforcement activities will be carried out in accordance with the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act. (see footnote 6)

There are no service standards associated with the MMER.

Contacts

Mr. Chris Doiron
Manager
Mining Section
Mining and Processing Division
Public and Resources Sectors Directorate
Environment Canada
351 Saint Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-953-1105
Fax: 819-994-7762
Email: Chris.Doiron@ec.gc.ca

Mr. Luis Leigh
Director
Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division
Environment Canada
10 Wellington Street, 25th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-953-1170
Fax: 819-953-3241
Email: Luis.Leigh@ec.gc.ca

Footnote a
R.S., c. F-14

Footnote 1
SOR/2002-222

Footnote 2
Parameters for effluent characterization are identified in Schedule 5, subsection 4(1) of the MMER. Parameters for water quality monitoring are identified in subsection 7(1).

Footnote 3
The results of effluent characterization and water quality monitoring are considered in the design of studies to investigate the cause of effects observed in the EEM program, and may also assist in interpreting the results of such studies and identifying the cause of effects.

Footnote 4
In the case of paragraph 17(g), for the first interpretive report, results of effluent characterization, water quality monitoring and sublethal toxicity testing conducted since the mine became subject to the MMER will need to be summarized. For subsequent interpretive reports [subsection 21(1)] and the final interpretive report (section 25), results of effluent characterization, water quality monitoring and sublethal toxicity testing conducted since the submission of the previous interpretive report will need to be summarized.

Footnote 5
Updated (2011) chapters of the Technical Guidance Document are available for download at www.ec.gc.ca/esee-eem/default.asp?lang=En&n=D450E00E-1.

Footnote 6
The policy is available from the CEPA Registry Web site at www.ec.gc.ca/alef-ewe/default.asp?lang=En&n=D6B74D58-1.