Jacques Whitford Environment Limited (GEL) was selected by the Mine Environment
Neutral Drainage (MEND) program to conduct a review of Canadian and United States
legislation relevant to decommissioning acid mine drainage (AMD) sites. The purpose
of the review was to provide government agencies, industry representatives and other
organizations and individuals with an overview of the existing Canadian and United
States regulatory framework relevant to decommissioning AMD sites, and to
summarize the criteria used by Canadian and United States regulatory agencies to
assess the performance of a decommissioning, AMD site.

This report is the result of two separate reviews financially supported by different
groups. The review of Canadian legislation was sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of
Environment & Energy and Homestake Canada Inc. The review of United States
legislation was sponsored by Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company. The findings
of both reviews are combined in this report for completeness.

Canada is actively involved in research on the prediction and control of AMD,
particularly with respect to metal mining operations. Much of this research is fostered
by the national Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) program in which the
provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New
Brunswick participate. Research on AMD from coal mining operations is likely further
advanced in the United States.

In general, regulatory strategies specifically geared towards decommissioning sites
with AMD are still in the development stage in both Canada and the United States.
Overall, environmental legislation is more prescriptive in the United States than in
Canada. Some of the criteria that would typically be used in assessing the success of
an AMD site decommissioning are effluent quality leaving the mine site and
groundwater and surface water quality downgradient from the mine site. Effluent
limitations, drinking water standards and surface water quality criteria have all been
developed at a federal level by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In
addition, they are all enforceable at either the federal or state level, depending on
whether a particular state has a federally approved regulatory program in place.

In Canada, on the other hand, non-enforceable water quality guidelines or objectives
are the norm. However, site-specific enforceable parameters, based on water quality
guidelines or objectives, may be incorporated in mine operation permits or licenses.

Seven states were contacted as part of this review. Idaho and Nevada have no
regulations, guidelines or policies tailored specifically for licensing or decommissioning
mines with AMD, or the potential for AMD. California and Montana do not have
clear-cut legislation to address AMD specifically, but do seem to have some general
policies for the approach (i.e. site-specific) to be used in decommissioning AMD sites.
Legislation in Colorado makes reference to AMD by stating that “acid-forming material”
at operating mine sites should be handled in a manner that will protect downgradient
water bodies.

Only two of the states contacted, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, have a regulatory
strategy that addresses AMD directly. In both states, predictive testing for acid
generation potential is mandatory prior to approval. In Pennsylvania, if a proposed
mine site is shown to have the potential for AMD, it is not licensed. West Virginia
requires that control technologies be adequate to meet effluent and water quality
criteria. However, in neither state is there a systematic approach for decommissioning
abandoned mines with AMD.

All the provinces and territories were contacted as part of this review. Two of the
provinces do not have a significant AMD problem (Prince Edward Island, Alberta). The
remaining provinces and the territories are at different stages of developing regulatory
strategies for addressing AMD. In most jurisdictions, there are now provisions for
proposed mines to complete some type of environmental impact statement. However,
depending on which jurisdiction, the discretion granted to the “minister”, and/or the size
of the proposed mine, the complexity of the statement will vary.

Several provinces, including British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, have
guidelines in place that require predictive testing to determine the acid generation
potential of rock units at a proposed mine. Nova Scotia has gone a step further and
requires monitoring, and sometimes predictive testing, at any development on shale of
the Halifax Formation.

With respect to effluent limitations, most provinces use the federal Metal Mining Liquid
Effluent Regulations, although some provinces such as British Columbia,
Saskatchewan and Quebec have developed their own. Ontario is currently in the
process of developing comprehensive effluent regulations for various industries,
including mining, under the Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA)
program

For water quality criteria, many provinces use the federal Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines, although provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec have developed, or are developing, their own
criteria for surface water and/or groundwater quality. Both British Columbia and
Manitoba seem to be taking a different approach from the other provinces. For
example, with time, surface water bodies in Manitoba will be classified according to
present and potential use and water quality criteria set
accordingly. This approach is similar to that taken in the United States. British
Columbia sets water quality objectives on a site-specific basis, taking into account such
factors as water quality and water uses. This approach potentially has the flexibility to
address the anomalous background water chemistry sometimes encountered at mine
sites.