Base Metal Smelters and Refineries and Zinc Plants – Response to Stakeholders' Comments

Comments

Some comments indicated support for the Code as a voluntary guide to continuous environmental improvement and provided suggestions for its further development and improvement:

• Suggest recognition of existing, comparable practices.
• Recommend continued Code development by transparent process, the application of sound science and available technology, with input from industry and other communities of interest.
• Flexibility to site-specific situations should be recognized, as in the Environmental Code of Practice for Iron and Steel Mills.

Other comments opposed the Code or questioned its need:

• Code is unduly prescriptive and would impose excessive costs for monitoring and reporting.
• Concern that guidelines do not allow facilities to find the most cost-effective means to reduce emissions.

Responses

Modifications to the Code text were made to provide further clarity and more consistency with the P2 Plan elements.

The Code includes recommended practices for continual improvements in environmental performance. The Code is meant to be performance based, clear but not overly prescriptive.

The Code does not preclude the use of more cost effective alternative practice or technology by individual facilities as long as they achieve an equivalent or better level of environmental protection. (see 1.4 in the Code).

Comments

Another series of comments were related to legal/enforcement and economic aspects of the Code:

• Concern with requirement for report of status of conformance with Code.
• Concern with duplication/overlap of Code with existing practices and provincial regulations.
• Concern with recommendations in sections 1.2 and 1.6 because they may encourage governments, ENGOs, and the financial community to view every element of the Code as a quasi-regulatory requirement.
• Concern that Code may be viewed as quasi-regulatory, and companies will be forced to rationalise why each element was not implemented, although not every element may be appropriate to all facilities.
• Code recommendations should be enforceable, not voluntary guidelines.

Responses

The Code does not have the force of law, and therefore, it nether substitutes or replaces existing regulatory requirements under municipal, provincial and federal authorities. The elements of the Code are a compilation and recommended best practices for responsible environmental protection by facilities.

Comments

Comments related to the proposed Sulphur Fixation Rates were received:

• Sulphur fixation >90% would require large, uneconomic process changes with no health or environmental benefits in itself.

Responses

Based on advice from consultants and BEMAG, the Sulphur Fixation rates were modified from those in the Proposed P2 Planning Notice and Code. The emission guidelines are now:

1. Each facility should consider use of low sulphur feed and recycled materials to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide.
2. Each existing facility should be designed and operated to achieve a minimum sulphur fixation rate of 90% by a committed timetable.
3. Each new copper, lead and zinc smelter should be designed and operated to achieve a minimum sulphur fixation rate of 99%.
4. Each new nickel smelter should be designed and operated to achieve a minimum sulphur fixation rate of 96%.

Comments

Comments pertained to how the Code related to the Proposed Notice:

• Concern with certain guidelines for Particulate Matter and Sulphur Fixation, due to inconsistency with proposed sulphur dioxide targets in the Proposed P2 Notice.
• Emission concentration and ambient air quality objectives may be inconsistent with Proposed Notice targets.
• Recommend allowance for sulphur reduction at the mine/mill for smelter sulphur dioxide emission reductions.

Responses

The 2015 targets in the Proposed P2 Notice were estimated to be equivalent 95% Sulphur Fixation. The modified Code is for a minimum of 90% Sulphur Fixation. The modified P2 Notice is for a minimum of 90% Sulphur Fixation, or provincial requirements, whichever is the most stringent.

Emission concentration limits may not always be adequate to meet ambient air quality objectives at all times. Therefore, special actions may be required at certain times such as temporary reduction of smelter operations as discussed in item 2.2 Targets and Schedules.

Low sulphur feed and/or by pyrrhotite rejection which will decrease sulphur dioxide emissions, are recognized pollution prevention techniques. In addition, there are available smelting, refining and acid recovery plant technologies that will reduce emissions. Both pollution prevention and pollution control may be used.

Comments

Some comments pertaining to specific sections and recommendations of the Code were received:

• Recommend use of wording of "good environmental practices" instead of "best available techniques" in Section S.3.
• Concern that Section S.3 was not developed in consultation with BEMAG.
• Recommendations R207, R210, R307, R111, R113, R114 should be recommended in the P2 Notice as "factors to consider".
• Recommendation R209 units and numbers should be reviewed, as different units have been given, and numbers do not correspond to previous draft versions.
• Concern with recommendation R204 setting of 95% sulphur fixation for older facilities; suggest 95% for new facilities and 90% for existing.
• The emission concentration recommended in R203 would require a technology change, whose cost is not supported by risk analysis.
• Should recommend that facilities develop site-specific targets and schedules.
• The Notice and Code should clarify that particulate matter targets should be based on process emissions which can be reliably measured.

Responses

The Code as a whole has been developed through consultation with BEMAG. During the process comments have been received on the whole document as well as on individual elements of the Code.

The Code is referenced in the Notice as a "factor to consider" when developing Pollution Prevention Plans.

Error in numerical units in Recommendation 209 has been rectified.

Other modifications to the Code have been made and some of these are indicated in responses to other comments.