FINAL NAL CLOSURE OSURE AND ND RECLAMA ECLAMATION TION PL PLAN - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MVLWB Technical Session Snap Lake Mine Final Closure, and Water Licence and Land Permit Renewal July 16 to 18, 2019

FINAL NAL CLOSURE OSURE AND ND RECLAMA ECLAMATION TION PL PLAN

PUBLIC LIC PRESEN ENTATION ION

1

• FCRP is based on MVLWB guidance documents
• Overall closure goal: To return the site and affected areas around the Mine to technically viable and, where practicable,

self-sustaining ecosystems that are compatible with a healthy environment and with human activities.

• Key closure principles:
• Physical stability
• Chemical stability
• No long-term active care
• Compatibility with land use in surrounding areas
• Incorporates stakeholder feedback received through TK workshops, WG sessions, and community visits
• Builds upon closure design concepts developed in ICRP v3.2, and includes:
• Description of site closure conditions and summary of options and engineering design
• Post-closure monitoring plans
• Integrated schedule of activities
• Approach to post-closure site assessment
• SMART closur

ure e criter eria ia have been developed

CONCEPTS CEPTS FOR R DEVELOP OPMENT ENT OF THE FCRP RP

2

OBJEC ECTI TIVES ES BASED D APPROACH CH TO CLOSUR SURE PLANNING

MVLWB Approved

Provided in FCRP Provided in FCRP

Provided in FCRP; incorporates feedback from Nov meeting

MINE NE CLOSURE OSURE OBJECTIVES BJECTIVES

4

CATE TEGO GORI RIES ES AND COMPON ONENT ENTS S FOR R CLOSURE SURE

Site Wide e (SW):

• Includes everything on site

Infras astruc tructure ure (I):

• Airstrip
• Roads
• Water management structures (sumps, ditches, and water

management pond)

• Water treatment plant
• Buildings
• Sewage treatment plant
• Processing facilities
• Rock pads
• Laydown areas
• Exploration pits
• Vent and portal structures at surface
• Quarry
• Diffuser and related piping

North h Pile e (NP):

• Entire structure of the North Pile
• Water management structures are an

infrastructure component Under dergr groun

• und

d Mine e (UG):

• All aspects of the underground mine that are

below ground.

• Vent and portal openings are an

infrastructure component

5

SEVEN SITE WIDE (SW) OBJECTIVES

SW2 - Drainage pathways for surface runoff are physically stable.

SW1 – Dust levels safe for people, vegetation, aquatic life and wildlife.

SW3 - Surface runoff and seepage water quality that is safe for people, vegetation, aquatic life, and wildlife. SW4 - Mine areas are physically stable and safe for use by people and wildlife. SW5 - Landscape features (shape and vegetation) match aesthetics of the surrounding natural area. SW6 - Safe passage and use for Caribou and

• ther wildlife.

SW7 - Re-vegetation targeted to priority areas.

6

INFRASTRUCTURE (I) OBJECTIVES

I1 – Prevent remaining infrastructure from contaminating land or water. I2 – On-site disposal areas are safe for people, wildlife, and vegetation. I3 – Contaminated soils and waste disposal areas that cannot contaminate land and water.

7

NORTH PILE (NP) OBJECTIVES

NP1 – Prevent PK from entering the surrounding terrestrial and aquatic environment. NP2 – Physically stable PK containment area to limit risk of failure that would affect safety of people or wildlife.

8

UNDERGROUND (UG) OBJECTIVES

UG1 – Flooding of the underground mine will have no impacts to aquatic habitat and community in source lakes. UG2 – Underground mine should not contribute to the contamination of ground or surface water. UG3 – Underground mine workings are physically stable.

TOTAL AL IMAGE GE POST-CLOSURE SITE CONDITION

10 10

REVEGE EGETATION ON AND SITE E WATER ER FLOW – AREAS AS

11 11

PROPO POSE SED D PROJECT JECT EXECUT CUTION ROADM DMAP AP – BASE E CASE

2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 2022 2022 2023 2023 2024 2024 2025 2025 2026 2026 2027 2027 2028 2028 2029 2029 2030 2030 2031 2031 2032 2032 2033 2033 2034 2034

2035 2035-2045 2045

Demolition Winter Road Water Management System and North Pile Cover Construction (Influent Storage Ponds, Wetlands and spillways) Active Demolition Activity Revegetation, Landforming and Site Stabilization Final Winter Road Owners Team Fully Activated Extended Care and Maintenance Winter Road 1 Post Closure Water Licence Process Monitoring of System Biota Growth and Denitrification

KEY Y QUES UESTIO TIONS NS ON FCRP RP – OBJEC JECTI TIVES, VES, CRI RITERIA TERIA & & MONIT NITORING RING

13 13

• There were three themes that were raised during the initial review:
• Linkage

ages betw etwee een Objectiv jectives, s, Crit iter eria ia and Closu

• sure

e Ac Activ ivit itie ies

• Linkage

ages betw etwee een Objectiv jectives, s, Crit iter eria ia and Monit itor

• rin

ing Plans

• Monit

itor

• ring Durat

atio ions s in Closu

• sure

e Crit iter eria ia

• Integratio

ations of Engage ageme ment t Data ta and Future e Use e and d Ae Aesth sthetic tics s Principle iple

• The following slides will address some of these themes to provide additional clarity on the linkages

and how the entire application (Water Licence, Land Use Permit, FCRP, Designs and Monitoring Programs) is intertwined.

KEY QUES ESTIONS TIONS RAIS ISED ED ON THE HE SMART T FCRP RP OBJE JECTIVES CTIVES, , CRIT ITERI ERIA AND MONITORI RING

14 14

HOW DO WE LINK ALL THE AREAS S - SUCCESS CCESS INDIC DICATORS ORS TO SUPPOR ORT T MONITORING ORING Success Indicators are the agreed upon standards that demonstrate whether actual closure performance is progressing over time (as expected at the design phase), in

• rder to meet closure objectives.

Closure Activities Staged Reclamation Security Return Post Closure Monitoring Success Indicators

Are the criteria achieved? Are contingency or remedial actions required?

Final/Complete Reclamation Security Return Criteria Achieved

Reclamation Completion Report Performance Assessment Report

15 15

• Table 5.2 has been updated to identify specific activities that will be undertaken to meet closure objectives and criteria as recommended.
• Updated was submitted 3 July 2019

CLARI RIFI FICA CATION TION OF ACTI TIVITIE TIES S LINKED ED TO CLOSURE SURE CRITERIA TERIA

Revie iewe wer Concern erns

• MVLWB 160: clarify closure criteria to be more specific about which activities will be carried out to meet closure objectives

Closure re Objecti tive Origi ginal Closure re Criteri ria Revised Closure re Criteri ria (revise sed criteri ria in blue font) t) Primary ry Reclamati tion

• n Activiti

ties (new activiti ties s in blue font) t) Post-Clos

• sure

re Inspect ction

• ns and/or

/or Monitor toring (new w details in blue font) t)

NP2 – Physically stable PK containment area to limit risk of failure that would affect safety of people or wildlife. 1. Physical Stability Acceptable results, as identified in NP1, of visual monitoring for deformation and degradation for a minimum of three years Post-Closure as part of site geotechnical inspections completed and signed off by a professional engineer. 1. Chemical Stability Not applicable as this is a physical stability

• bjective. Chemical stability is addressed

in SW3. 1. Future Use and Aesthetics Future use and aesthetics will be met through physical criteria as described in NP2-1. Final grading will reflect surrounding topography. 1. Physical Stability Acceptable results, as identified in NP1, of visual monitoring for deformation and degradation for a minimum of three years Post- Closure as part of site geotechnical inspections completed and signed off by a professional engineer. 1. Chemical Stability Not applicable as this is a physical stability

• bjective. Chemical stability is addressed in

SW3. 1. Future Use and Aesthetics Future use and aesthetics will be met through physical criteria as described in NP2-1. Final grading will reflect surrounding topography. Final landscape inspected and submission of as-built conditions in a summary report completed by a professional engineer. Closure geotechnical monitoring. The WMP and North Pile sumps will be covered to stabilize accumulated sediments. Re-grading the slope of the west perimeter embankment of the Starter & East Cells. Infilling of the interior compartments of the Starter & East Cells. Placement of a final cover layer of coarse material over the entire North Pile for erosion protection purposes. Construction of swales and spillways on the final surficial cover of the North Pile to the perimeter ditches and influent storage ponds. Area inspected and as-built drawing is deemed acceptable and signed-off by a professional engineer. Geotechnical inspections (visual) of the site will occur Post-Closure in concert with the site geotechnical inspection and monitoring program. Thermal monitoring will be completed using thermistors that will be installed in the North

• Pile. Permafrost establishment is not

required to achieve stable slopes, but may enhance it.

16 16

• Post-closure monitoring, maintenance and reporting is covered in Section 5.5 of the

FCRP

• A column will be added to Table 5.6 Snap Lake Monitoring Programs in Section 5.5 to

specifically identify the Plans associated with each monitoring program

• The expected duration of Post-closure monitoring and action levels are outlined in each

Plan.

• In some cases (e.g. NP-1), high-level monitoring and reporting requirements have been

included directly in the criteria to acknowledge engagement data; details are provided in the specific Plan(s).

• The specific response plan for an action trigger will always be case-specific, possible

contingency actions are described Table 5.7 in Section 5.6 of the FCRP.

LINKING G MONITORI RING TO CLOSURE OSURE CRITERIA ERIA AND SPECI CIFIC FIC PLANS

Revie iewe wer r Concern erns

• MVLWB 126, 128, 135: identify Plan(s) associated with monitoring for closure criteria.
• MVLWB 117: Plans should provide duration of post closure monitoring and contingency measures
• MVLWB 116, 117, 119: These are not criteria, this is monitoring.

17 17

LINKING G PLANS TO MONITOR ORING G REQU QUIREMEN REMENTS TS (EXAMP AMPLE UPDATED TED TABLE 5.6)

18 18

LINKING G PLANS TO MONITOR ORING G REQU QUIREMEN REMENTS TS (EXAMP AMPLE UPDATED TED TABLE 5.6)

19 19

• Timeframes included in closure criteria to provide clarity regarding the length of time that

the criteria must be met in order to demonstrate successful achievement of criteria.

• This approach is in accordance with the MVLWB/INAC Guidelines (Section 1.1.6) which

states: Closure criteria may also have a temporal aspect to consider (e.g., a standard may have to be met for a pre-defined number of years).

• The timeframe provided for monitoring is stated as the minimum required to ensure that

criteria do not require monitoring beyond successful completion of the objective. If the criteria are not met after the initial three years of monitoring, then monitoring will continue until the criteria are achieved for a three year period.

TIMELINE E AND LANGUAGE GE OF MONITORING ORING DURA RATION TION

Revie iewe wer Concern erns

• MVLWB 95, 97, 101, 104: Revise the timeline and language of monitoring duration, e.g. cessation of monitoring may only occur once closure criteria are fully

achieved/once performance assessment report has been approved by the Board

20 20

• Our intent was to indicate the importance of future use considerations, including providing safe wildlife

habitat and safe use for people, in designing reclamation activities for chemical stability of surface water and seepage.

• Input from communities regarding future land use has highlighted the importance of fish populations,

fish health, and drinking water quality. These elements have been incorporated in the chemical stability criteria.

• In relation to SW3, the statement will be revised in the next version of the FCRP to reflect the correct

terminology, as shown on the next slide

• Revised wording will be provided for future use and aesthetics objectives for each criteria where

recommended

FUTURE TURE USE AND AESTHETI ETICS CS CLOSUR SURE CRITERIA TERIA

Revie iewe wer Concern erns

• MVLWB 102, 107, 121: Future use is a principle, not an objective. Identify how the goals of future use will be met more clearly in

closure criteria and supported by community engagement feedback or TK evidence

21 21

EXAMPLE E - PROP OPOSED OSED REVISIO SION TO FUTUR URE USE AND AESTHETI ETICS

Closu sure Objecti tive Closu sure Criteria Prima mary Reclama mation

• n Activiti

ties es Post st-Closu

• sure

Insp specti ction

• ns

and/or /or Monito toring Site Wide SW4 – Mine e areas are physi ysica cally y sta table and safe for use by peopl

• ple

e and wildlife

1. Physical Stability Acceptable results of visual monitoring for deformation and degradation for a minimum of three years Post-Closure as part

• f site geotechnical inspections completed and signed off by a

professional engineer. 2. Chemical Stability Not applicable as this is a physical objective. Chemical stability is addressed through site wide and infrastructure objectives (SW1, I1, and I3). 3. Future Use and Aesthetics Future use and aesthetics objectives are met through physical stability criteria as described in SW4-1.

Final grading will promote positive drainage towards pre-disturbance drainage pathways where possible. Drainage pathways will be established for long- term stability to avoid issues with erosion. Engineered earthen structures remaining at the site (i.e., North Pile) will be physically stable. See NP closure objectives below for details specific to stability of mine waste areas. Reclamation of fresh water intake facilities, the effluent diffuser and other aquatic habitats per the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan developed in consultation with DFO. Removal of all buildings, equipment, and surface hazards.. Geotechnical inspections (visual) of the site will occur Post- Closure in concert with the site geotechnical inspection and monitoring program. Additional monitoring will

• ccur at the North

Pile area (See NP closure objectives below).

Revised ed wording: ing: The principle of future use has been considered through identification of chemical stability criteria for surface and seepage water quality to support safe use of water bodies by people, vegetation, aquatic life, and wildlife. Site inspections by SLEMA and community fish-tasting (where requested) will be conducted to provide on-going community input into this objective.

22 22

• Appendix C outlines engagement data received and indicates how it has been

incorporated in the FCRP.

• Appendix C.3 outlines the input received through traditional knowledge workshops,

provides a summary of how the input has been incorporated, and provides cross- reference to the main document of the FCRP.

• Highlights of this appendix will be incorporated in Section 5.2.3 and 5.3 to more

explicitly demonstrate the linkage between engagement data and the proposed closure

• bjectives and criteria, the proposed closure activities, and the proposed monitoring

programs

INCL CLUSIO USION OF ENGAGEMEN GEMENT T AND TK IN CLOSURE SURE PLANNING

Revie iewe wer Concern erns

• MVLWB 90: Examples or references to how community engagement and TK have been incorporated into closure planning should be provided

23 23

• There are 3 sections of the application that describe how engagement and TK were incorporated
• 1. FCRP Traditional Use and Human Environment
• verview of how TK and human environment was considered
• 2. FCRP Appendix C.3
• utlines the input received through traditional knowledge workshops, provides a summary of how the input has been incorporated,

and provides cross-reference to the main document of the FCRP

3. Engagement Plan

• describes how De Beers will continue to engage with Parties during closure and post-closure

ENGAGEMEN GEMENT T AND INCO CORPO RPORA RATION TION OF TK IN CLOSUR SURE PLANNING

Revie iewe wer r Concern erns

• MVLWB 41: update a reference
• MVLWB 82: Section on traditional use doesn’t specify how engagement informs the FCRP
• MVLWB 90: examples or references influenced by engagement should be specified
• MVLWB 5: clarify future traditional uses
• MVLWB 125: needs links between criteria and goals of future use supported by engagement

24 24

• Key examples of how engagement data was incorporated into the proposed closure objectives and criteria

include the following:

• consideration of caribou access on the North Pile, where slopes and fill granularity have been specified as

design criteria;

• removal of all built surface structures to better reflect the existing regional landscape which was

highlighted as a concern by stakeholders;

• extension of community site visits and SLEMA inspections to support on-going TK input and to support

integration of TK with professional engineering judgement; and

• inclusion of 'minimum expected timeframes' in criteria for monitoring to more explicitly indicate that

monitoring will continue until site stability is achieved.

INCL CLUSIO USION OF ENGAGEMEN GEMENT T AND TK IN CLOSURE SURE PLANNING

Revie iewe wer Concern erns

• MVLWB 90: Examples or references to how community engagement and TK have been incorporated into closure planning should be provided