Canadian Abandoned Mines: Indian and Northern Affairs Program Update and Case Study

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Canadian Abandoned Mines: Indian and Northern Affairs Program Update and Case Study"

Ashlyn Reed
5 years ago
Views:

1 Canadian Abandoned Mines: Indian and Northern Affairs Program Update and Case Study Clinton Creek Asbestos Mine (Yukon) Lou Spagnuolo & Michael Nahir

Outline Introduction Program Mandate Classification of Sites Program Framework Funding Program Challenges Program Progress Faro Mine Case

2 Outline Introduction Program Mandate Classification of Sites Program Framework Funding Program Challenges Program Progress Faro Mine Case Study Closure Objectives Considerations for Closure Closure Options Selection of Final Closure Option Colomac Gold Mine (Northwest Territories)

3 Introduction Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) is the custodian of federal lands in the North: Responsible for the remediation of contaminated sites in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut The mining industry is an important economic driver: Mines were developed within historical legal frameworks when many environmental protection measures were inadequate. In 1999, the price of commodities dropped considerably and many mining companies filed for bankruptcy: These abandoned mines became the responsibility of INAC leaving the federal government with a significant liability. A mine site reclamation policy has since been developed to limit any future legacy of new and/or existing mines. The Northern Contaminated Sites Program was formed within INAC to deal with abandoned contaminated sites.

4 Program Mandate The Policy of the Northern Contaminated Sites Program, which was adopted in 2002, is: to manage contaminated sites in a cost-effective and consistent manner, to reduce and eliminate, where possible, risk to human and environmental health and liability associated with contaminated sites. INAC s sites are classified according to their priority: - Class 1: High Priority - Class N: Not a Priority - Class 2: Medium Priority- Class INS: Insufficient Information - Class 3: Low Priority The Program has over 80 Class 1 and 2 sites, including 25 abandoned mines, with a liability of over C$ 1 billion.

6 Program Framework Up until Treasury Board developed the Federal Contaminated Sites Management Policy Framework: approved $30 million over two years to assess federal contaminated sites. Budget $475M over 5 years announced to address contaminated sites. Budget the Program was enhanced with the announcement of $3.5 billion in funding over 15 years: also included $500M for shared responsibility sites. known as the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP). Budget 2009: additional funding, and an extension of the Program until the end of fiscal year , was announced (Canada s Economic Action Plan).

Wildlife Sites in sensitive areas Traditional land use implications Internal and external capacity

7 Program Challenges Remoteness Mobilization challenges (winter road, sealift and air access only) Health & safety risks Short field season 3-4 months Complexity and size of sites Permafrost Climate change concerns Wildlife Sites in sensitive areas Traditional land use implications Internal and external capacity Competing with public and private sector Polar Bear, Resolution Island (Nunavut) Summer, Resolution Island (Nunavut)

8 Program Budget The Program has been able to make significant progress, expending over C$ 600 million since Fifteen (15) sites completed so far with an additional nine (9) more sites to be completed in budget of approximately C$ 150 million. Step 1: Identify Suspected Site (as necessary) Step 2: Historical Review (90 sites) Step 3: Initial Testing Program (90 sites) Step 4: Classify Site (90 sites) Step 5: Detailed Testing Program (7 sites) Step 6: Reclassify Site (7 sites) Step 7: Develop Remediation Plan (9 sites) Step 8: Implement Remediation Plan (13 site) Step 9: Confirmatory Sampling (9 sites) Step 10: Long Term Monitoring (9 sites)

9 Program Progress The Program s procurement approach promotes benefits for Aboriginal people and northerners, while maximizing value for money for the Canadian taxpayer. Training (2006 to 2010): delivered close to 50,000 hours of training to over 2,600 employees Socio-economic (2006 to 2010): provided over 340,000 person-hrs of employment: includes approximately 163,000 person-hrs of Northern employment (including Aboriginal). entered into $285M in remediation contracts: Includes approximately $255M in contracts with Northern (including Aboriginal) companies. Consultations (2006 to 2010): over 5,100 people have attended 360 community consultation sessions, workshops and site tours organized by the Program.

10 Case Study: Faro Mine Selection of a Closure Option

Faro Mine Complex: General Location Faro Mine Pb/Zn mine operational from

Council, and upstream of the community of Pelly Crossing Pelly Crossing home

Town of Faro established to service the Faro Mine in 1969, now home to 400

11 Faro Mine Complex: General Location Faro Mine Pb/Zn mine operational from 1969 to 1998; located in the traditional territory of the Ross River Dena Council, and upstream of the community of Pelly Crossing Pelly Crossing home to the Selkirk First Nation (SFN) and directly downstream of the mine site Town of Faro established to service the Faro Mine in 1969, now home to 400 people Ross River home to the Ross River Dena Council (RRDC), part of the Kaska Nation

Faro Mine Complex: History (1969 1998) 1969 Faro Mine opens & Town of Faro established 1970s Largest lead/zinc mine in Canada 15% of world s Pb/Zn output population of Faro reaches 2000 by early 1980

12 Faro Mine Complex: History ( ) 1969 Faro Mine opens & Town of Faro established 1970s Largest lead/zinc mine in Canada 15% of world s Pb/Zn output population of Faro reaches 2000 by early 1980 s First of numerous shutdowns population of Faro drops to 97 by mid-1980 s Reclamation bond in place approx. $14 million after 29 years of intermittent operations, last owner placed into receivership care and maintenance carried out by receiver

Faro Pit 2 stream diversions 250 million MT waste rock Components No

13 Faro Mine Complex: Site Components Faro Mine Area Vangorda Plateau 13km Haul Road Components 70 million MT tailings 4 dams 1 open pit Faro Pit 2 stream diversions 250 million MT waste rock Components No tailings 2 open pits: Vangorda & Grum 1 stream diversion 70 million MT waste rock

Creek Diversion Vangorda Creek Diversion Rose Creek

14 Faro Mine Complex: Site Overview North Fork Rose Creek Faro Creek South Fork Rose Creek Vangorda Creek Faro Creek Diversion Vangorda Creek Diversion Rose Creek Anvil Creek Pelly River Rose Creek Diversion To Pelly River

15 Faro Mine Complex: Key Issues Generally site does not meet closure standards. Tailings highly acid generating and exposed Waste Rock highly acid generating and exposed Dams will not meet long-term stability requirements Diversions will not meet long-term flow design requirements Pits unstable and contaminated water Land use - Aboriginal traditional lands

16 Faro Mine Complex: Short-listed Closure Options Combined Faro Mine Area Vangorda/Grum Mine Area Move All Tailings or Cover Tailings or Move Partial Tailings and Cover Upgrade Faro Creek Diversion and Cover/Reveg Faro Waste Rock Move Vangorda Waste Rock into Vangorda Pit or Cover Vangorda Waste Rock in Place Partial Tailings

17 Faro Mine Complex: Common Elements of Options Any overall closure plan for the Faro Mine Complex will include some common elements: Long-term collection and treatment of contaminated water Long-term management of water treatment sludge Long-term storage of water in pits Long-term maintenance of remaining site facilities (diversions, covers, water collection systems, water treatment systems, dams, etc.) Long-term monitoring of environmental conditions (water, animals, plants, climate, etc.)

18 Faro Mine Area Option 1: Move all tailings * Image for illustration purposes only.

19 Faro Mine Area Option 2: Cover tailings * Image for illustration purposes only.

20 Faro Mine Area Option 3: Move some tailings and cover some tailings * Image for illustration purposes only.

21 Selection of Preferred Option: Multi-variable Assessment Structured method to compare remediation options to multiple project objectives Used to include non-monetary objectives Useful for multi-stakeholder assessments where consensus is desired Method used for complex decision making applications: Nuclear Waste Management long-term disposal assessment

22 Selection of Preferred Option: Multi-variable Analysis Created an assessment team with representation by aboriginals and advisors, technical advisor, peer review, governments Hired MVA/decision analysis experts used in NWMO disposal options analysis Significant reports going into process: Draft alternatives report Independent Peer Review report and comments by expert departments Implementation approach Risk assessment of options

23 Selection Selection of Preferred of Preferred Option: Option How did we go about it? How did we go about it? Major Steps in assessment were: 1. Converted each project objective into measurable objectives. They are: 1. environment 5. local land-use 2. public health and safety 6. local socio-economic 3. worker health and safety 7. Yukon socio-economic 4. traditional land use 8. cost 2. Worked through factors that influence the objectives 3. For each sub-objective short term (40 years) and longterm ( years) were considered 4. Developed technical notes describing the performance of each alternative to meet each objective for both short and long-terms scenarios

24 Selection Selection of Preferred of Preferred Option: Option How did we go about it? How did we go about it? Major Steps in assessment were (Cont d): 5. Conducted assessment by individually assigning scores from 0-10 for the expected performance of each option to meet objectives 6. Assigned individual weightings for each sub-objective (relative importance of each objective) 7. Produced bar charts of results 8. Conducted sensitivity analysis to determine the influence of weightings on the results

25 Score Faro Mine & Tailings Environmental Scores Short Term Long Term Ideal performance. No adverse impact to any aspect of the environment, including aesthetics. Thealternative fully restores and protects all water, land, air, fish and wildlife to conditions that are equal to or exceed that which existed prior to the mine. Comprehensive monitoring provides assurance. Very good performance. Impacts are insignificant. No violations to environmental standards will occur. Although some minimal aesthetic affects may remain, the alternative fully restores and protects all highvalue resources. Cleanup and monitoring is bestpractice. Good performance. Some minor, localized, temporary impacts to environmental resources. Any violations to standards are minor; exceedences will self-correct within the year. Monitoring is adequate to allow problems to be identified and addressed in a timely fashion Dry Cover Partial Relocation Complete Relocation Dry Cover Partial Relocation Complete Relocation 7 Fair performance. Some exceedences of applicable standards and/or localized, short-term impacts to environmental resources will occur. Effects on plants, fish, and wildlife will be mild and selfcorrecting within about 3 years Mediocre performance. There will be a few serious violations of applicable environmental standards. Effects on environmental resources will be significant, but localized and correctable. Regional abundance of the important species will not be seriously affected. Self-correcting in about 10 years Poor performance. Significant violations and significant problems. There will be serious but correctable damage to some highly valued ecosystem components. Regional abundance of some important species will be affected, and adverse effects will not persist for more than a generation. 5 Do Noting 5 4 Very poor performance. Serious problems. Moderate-scale, longterm, ecosystem damage. Regional abundance of important species impacted over multiple generations. Not entirely correctable. 4 4 Do Noting 3 Bad performance. Very serious, moderate-scale problems with irreversible (permanent) damage to some of the most highlyvalued ecosystem components. Between scores of 2 and Very bad performance. Major problems. Permanent, large-scale, ecosystem damage. Regional loss of some key resources Terrible performance. Critical problem. Loss of some ecosystem functions. Between scores of 0 and % - tile 50% - tile 1 10% - tile 1% - tile 0 Abominable performance. An environmental disaster. Permanent, large-scale loss of many key species and irreparable damage to ecosystem function. 0 $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 0 $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000

26 Score Faro Mine & Tailings Traditional Land Use Scores Short Term Long Term 10 Ideal performance. No adverse impact to traditional land use. Site fully restored to natural state Very good performance. Some remaining aesthetic affects, but only insignificant and impacts on traditional land use. Necessary aquatic resources fully restored. Site allows hunting, trapping trails, trap lines essentially as existed prior to mine. Unimpeded access available at traditional trails. Good performance. Some minor, localized impacts to traditional land use. Few people are effected and for only a limited amount of time Dry Cover Partial Relocation Complete Relocation Fair performance. Some moderate, highly localized, short-term limitations to traditional land use. Affects utilization of some, but not all traditional resources. Mediocre performance. Some significant limitations over a small area on traditional land use remain. Between 5 and 7 Poor performance. Significant problems (e.g., reduction in habitat productivity) limit but do not eliminate uses essential for tradition. The impact is over a moderately sized area. Between scores of 4 and 6. Very poor performance. Serious problems result in significant and persistent limitations on traditional land use over a relatively large area. Affects usage of many important traditional resources. Seriously adversely affects traditions for some peoples Do Noting Dry Cover Partial Relocation Complete Relocation Do Noting 3 Bad performance. Very serious problems. Impacts large area. Between scores of 2 and Very bad performance. Major problems. Key traditional resources lost. Permanent and major limitations on traditional land use over a very large area. Affects usage of nearly all important traditional resources for many people. Traditions lost for many peoples Terrible performance. Critical problem. Between scores of 0 and % - tile 50% - tile 0 Abominable performance. An disaster for traditional land use. Permanent loss of traditional land use opportunities over an extensive area and for nearly all people resulting in irreparable break with traditions. 10% - tile 1% - tile 0 $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 0 $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000

27 Selection of Preferred Option: Preferred Option Preferred Option All options meet the objectives of the major stakeholders. Cost-benefit analysis reveals marginal, and in some cases, a reduced benefit by spending an extra approx. $100M for the partial relocation and an extra approx. $200M for the full relocation of tailings over the stabilize the tailings in place option. Working with Aboriginal groups to develop options and discuss risks builds trust and a sense of mission to move forward and get the job done.

28 Questions?

Faro Mine Remediation Project - A Risk-Based Approach to Work Planning - April, 2016

Faro Mine Remediation Project - A Risk-Based Approach to Work Planning - April, 2016 Agenda Faro Mine Site Background History Site Overview Conceptual Closure Plan Remediation Schedule Faro Mine Site Project