Maria Story, P. Eng. Story…

Maria Story, P. Eng.
Story Environmental Inc.
332 Main St.
Haileybury, Ontario
P0J 1K0

9 October 2023
Ministry of Mines
RE: Proposed regulatory amendments required to implement legislative amendments made through Building More Mines Act, 2023 - ERO: 019-7598
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input to the proposed changes to the Mining regulations, in particular O. Reg. 240/00. The comments below are provided in Order that they appear in Appendix A.
Changes to Certifications
1. New Up-Front Technical Certifications of Closure Plans – This is an important step toward efficiency, but it is important to ensure that anyone certifying a closure plan in anyway has a regulatory body that they are accountable to. This is paramount or this approach will fail. You can not rely on individuals to self-regulate. The Ministry must not rely on individuals with a B.Sc. or M. Sc. and no professional designation to certify a closure plan. You can not rely on individuals without professional designation to be honest about this or to ensure that they have adequate experience to review closure plans. It is important that this is reconsidered. This is discussed more below.
2. New Technical Certification for Alternative Measures – It is important to list the people who can provide technical certifications with their professional designations: Professional Engineers registered with the Province of Ontario, Professional Geologists, or Professional Geoscientists. It is important to add Professional Geoscientists to this list, as this includes hydrogeologists, geochemists, etc. This should not be left general as again, these engineers, geologists may not have a professional regulatory body that they are accountable to. They may not be paying their dues and therefore are not accountable to any regulatory body. Also, engineering disciplines have different skills which were acquired in school but then honed based on years of work experience. For instance, Geological Engineers have much of the same training as Mining Engineers and/or Civil Engineers as an example. But it is their work experience which has honed their skills and allows them to stamp and certify drawings/documents/reports.
3. Changes to Certificates – Agreed. This makes sense.
4. Corporate Certifications – Good. You should also add that original signatures are not required on the same page or maybe not at all and electronic signatures are acceptable.
Who can give certifications?
This was a very difficult point to discuss with the OMA because there are many scientists and members of the OMA who think that they should be able to certify certain aspects of closure plans. There are probably some that can but unfortunately, there will be many that will think that they can, but they do not have the relevant experience or the regulatory body to ensure that they do not certify something that they shouldn’t be certifying. So, I do not agree with this position. I truly believe that this will be a mistake. I know that this is coming from me, as a Professional Engineer, but there is a reason why certifications are generally completed by someone with a professional designation. Surface water, groundwater, and revegetation are some of the most important environmental components of closure plans. I think that these are being over simplified, and they shouldn’t be.
As I indicate above, I do not believe that you should allow people without professional designations to certify any aspect of closure plans. There are people who work in the professional and want to be able to certify closure plans but again, they have no regulatory body that they are accountable to. Work experience does not replace the Code of Ethics which binds these people.
Surface water is still complex and must be thought about critically. Despite years of experience, many technicians can not do this adequately and just determine that everything should be monitored. It requires critical thinking and the ability to make decisions wisely to ensure that a monitoring program is appropriate for closure. There are complex points to be considered, does the waste water still require treatment, what is the length of the mixing zone, what are the parameters of interest in this waste water, what waterbodies will/can be impacted by the site as closure. It is important that this is considered from an overall environmental impact perspective. This should be done by someone with a professional designation and accountability. Part of the problem over the years is that too much power has been given to people without this level of training, accountability, ability to think critically, and experience that was necessary and it resulted in a system which was no longer functional. O. Reg. 240/00 in fact was a good regulation, it is just that over the years the interpretation changed, and people chose to interpret it in ways in which it wasn’t intended.
Groundwater is a technically very complex subject which involves geology, overburden, bedrock (many different types), groundwater flow, drinking water aquifers, and groundwater chemistry. It isn’t as simple as just putting some groundwater monitoring wells in a few locations. This shouldn’t be certified by anyone other than Professional Engineers, Professional Geologists, or Professional Geoscientists. The fact that groundwater is being considered for certification by someone with just a degree in science or engineering, with no professional designation, is not appropriate. Groundwater monitoring wells must be placed very carefully, and the date interpreted carefully with many years of experience to ensure it is being interpreted correctly. It is a bit scary to me that this is being considered. This is not appropriate for someone without professional designation and accountability.
Revegetation is not as critical but again should be certified by someone with professional designation and accountability.
These certifications should only be done by those with professional designations and accountability. Otherwise, there is no way to ensure that it is being done in a technical robust manner. There may be a few environmental consultants who have sufficient scientific background to certify these aspects of closure plans but how will this be regulated. There will be no mechanism for this without a regulatory body.

Updating the Mine Rehabilitation Code
1. Moving the Mine Rehabilitation Code to Policy – Good
2. New Part – Infrastructure – Good
3. Changes to Objective Statements – Part 1, Good; Part 2 and 3, Good.

Part 5, surface water monitoring, needs to be discussed further. This needs to be described very clearly, as discharging some water above Provincial Water Quality Objectives in perpetuity may result in a short mixing zone but that may have a much smaller environmental footprint than operating a water treatment system in perpetuity. This is partly why I believe that surface water should be certified by a professional with accountability. It isn’t as easy as just assigning some sampling locations. It is much more complex than that. The existing Code is well written and allows for mixing zones. This should be preserved as often a short mixing zone represents the smallest environmental footprint. This is not simple and needs to be thoroughly thought through and evaluated. This is the level of thinking which can not be done by someone with a university degree and 5 years of experience. The person making these decisions and certifying the surface water monitoring program for closure must be able to make these types of determinations. It is not as simple as just assigning some locations for surface water monitoring. It is important that this subject is not over simplified.

Part 7, metal leaching and acid rock drainage, again, this must be carefully considered as a management plan should only be necessary when it is established that leaving the materials in the state that they will result in an adverse affect.

Part 9, revegetation – Good. I just think it is very important that waste rock, which is not metal leaching or acid generating, should not have to be revegetated, if there are no aesthetic issues. A waste rock pile in a remote location, provides habitat for birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and small mammals. If they are stable (chemically and physically) unless they are aesthetically displeasing, they should be left as they are.

4. Specific Changes to Detailed Requirements – Good. It is just important that it is clearly worded to ensure that mixing zones are still allowed as per the MECP’s ECA. Possibly, this mixing zone should even be extended if the treatment can be removed. There are some important considerations to be made here. It isn’t as straightforward as what is presented but it is heading in a better direction.
Revegetation – Good
Conditional Filing – Good
Determining Compatibility with Adjacent Land or Alternative Future Uses -These amendments make sense.
Phased Financial Assurance – Good
Streamlining the Regulation – Good
Class of Facilities Exemption for Battery Mineral Concentrations
As I indicated in my previous submission, unlike other manufacturing facilities, battery mineral facilities will usually produce relative significant volumes of solid waste which will often be categorized as hazardous under the waste regulations. If there is a solid waste stream produced it is important that this facility remains under the mining act, as managing hazard waste under the waste regulations can be very onerous. This is what sets batter mineral facilities apart from other manufacturing facilities which are currently not included in the mining regulations. This should be considered very carefully as there was an important reason for them to be captured under the mining regulations. I believe this is the reason and removing them will at times be extremely cost prohibitive for battery mineral facilities.
Please reach out if you have any questions regarding the above. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours truly,
Maria Story, P. Eng.
President