NUNAVUT WATER BOARD

  
  
            Licence No. 1AR-NAN0914 Type A Licence
               Renewal/Amendment Application
  
  ___________________________________________________
                     COMMUNITY SESSION
  ___________________________________________________

  
                    Arctic Bay, Nunavut
                      October 8, 2014

  

  
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  October 8, 2014
  
  Opening by the Chair                              6
  
  Presentation by Nunavut Water Board Staff         11
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              23
  
  Presentation by Nyrstar Canada (Holdings)         25
  Limited
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              40
  
  Presentation by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern   56
  Development Canada
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              59
  
  Presentation by Department of National Defence    66
  Canada
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              70
  
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  October 8, 2014
  
  Presentation by Department of Fisheries           77
  and Oceans Canada
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              80
  
  Certificate of Transcript                         84

  

  

  

  

  
  NUNAVUT WATER BOARD
  T. Kabloona              Chair of Hearing
  J. Pameolik              Member
  B. Dean                  Member
  
  NUNAVUT WATER BOARD STAFF
  D. Cote                  Executive Director
  C. Boyer                 Legal Counsel
  D. Hohnstein             Technical Advisor
  S. Joseph                Technical Advisor
  B. Kogvik                Board Secretary/Interpreter
  R. Ikkutisluk            Licencing Administrator
  
  INTERPRETERS/TRANSLATORS
  M. Allurut               Inuktitut Language Translator
  K. Attagutsiak           Inuktitut Language Translator
  
  T. Rizzoli, CSR(A)       Official Court Reporter
  
  N. Portais               Sound Technician
  
  NYRSTAR CANADA (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
  J. Skoglund              Group Manager Environment
  A. Laudrum               Consultant (SRK Consulting)
  C. Lavallee              Environmental Technician
  
  ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CANADA
  K. Costello              Director of Resource
                           Management
  M. Ball                  Manager of Water Resources
  I. Parsons               Regional Coordinator
  
  DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE CANADA
  L. LeMay                 Technical Specialist (Defence
                           Construction Canada)
  R. Watson                Department of National Defence
  
  DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANAD
  K. Bill                  Manager of Strategic Planning
                           and Investments
  _______________________________________________________

  

  

  

  (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 6:56 PM)
  Opening by the Chair
  THE CHAIR:               Welcome back.  Before we begin
  this community session, I would like to ask Olayuk
  Naqitarvik to do the opening prayer for the community
  session.
  (OPENING PRAYER)
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Good evening, and welcome to the public hearing
  for the renewal/amendment application for Licence
  1AR-NAN0914.  My name is Thomas Kabloona, and I'm the
  Chair of the Nunavut Water Board.  On behalf of the
  Nunavut Water Board, I welcome you to the community of
  Arctic Bay.  The purpose of this community session is
  to review an application by Nyrstar Canada (Holdings)
  Limited on behalf of CanZinco Mines Limited for the
  renewal and amendment of a Type A water licence in
  accordance with Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface
  Rights Tribunal Act.
       I will be chairing this Panel.  With me today, as
  members of the Panel are Board members, Bernadette Dean
  to my left and to my right is Joseph Pameolik; several
  staff members who have contributed to the Board's
  administration and the technical review of
  the application are present with legal counsel to the
  Board, and I will introduce the individuals attending
  today:  Damien Cote, executive director; David
  Hohnstein, director of technical services; Sean Joseph,
  technical advisor; Robin Ikkutisluk, licencing
  administrator; Craig Boyer with Shores Jardin LLP,
  legal counsel for the Board.  In addition, we have two
  interpreters available for simultaneous translation.
  For audio support, we have Norbert from PIDO Production
  with us.  If you experience any difficulties with your
  headsets, he will be able to provide assistance.  To
  ensure an accurate record of the proceeding is kept, we
  have with us a court reporter, Toni, from Dicta Court
  Reporting Incorporated.  To assist Toni, I ask that all
  parties please state their name prior to speaking.
       In the past, parties in other proceedings
  have approached the media prior to the release of the
  Board's decision suggesting comments about what the
  Board is going to do, either procedurally or in terms
  of the final result.  Since the Board cannot comment on
  pending matters either by confirming or denying the
  accuracy of statements by others to the media, the
  Board would appreciate if all parties would refrain
  from any such comments that may imply a certain action
  or decision by the Board.  Board members will not
  discuss the hearing or the matters before the Board
  with either the parties or the media.
       If you have any questions about the Board and its
  practices or procedures, please speak with the
  executive director, and he will assist you.
       Prior to identifying and introducing all the
  parties in attendance today, I will provide a
  brief history of licences that have been issued to the
  project, as well as the current renewal/amendment
  application that is before the Board.
       Both the Northwest Territories Water Board and the
  Nunavut Water Board have issued licences to the project
  in the past.  The initial licences to conduct
  exploration and mining activities were issued to the
  project by the Northwest Territories Water Board.
  Details on duration and scope of the licences issued by
  the Northwest Territories Water Board were not readily
  available, as they predate the existence of the Water
  Board.
       The Water Board has issued three licences and two
  amendments to the project.  Licence NWB1NAN9702 was
  issued to Nanisivik Mines Limited on July 1, 1997, with
  an expiry date of June 30, 2002.  The licence allowed
  for the use of 180,000 cubic metres of water per day
  and the deposit of waste for mining and milling
  undertaking.
       On February 20, 2001, the licence was assigned
  from Nanisivik Mines Limited to Nanisivik Mine, a
  division of CanZinco.  Amendment Number 1 to Licence
  NAN9702 was issued on December 9th, 1999, to allow for
  changes in operational conditions.  Amendment Number 2
  to Licence NWB1NAN9207 was issued on March 20, 2000, to
  allow for additional changes in operational conditions.
  Renewal Licence NWB1NAN0208 was issued to CanZinco on
  October 1, 2002, with an expiry date of May 1, 2008.
  The licence allowed for the use of 180,000 cubic metres
  of water per day and the deposit of waste in support of
  industrial undertaking that includes closure,
  reclamation, post-closure monitoring activities at the
  formal Nanisivik Mine site.  Renewal Licence
  1AR-NAN0914 was issued to CanZinco on April 1, 2009,
  and expired March 31st, 2014.  The licence allowed for
  the use of 100 cubic metres of water per day and the
  deposit of waste in support of industrial undertaking
  that involved continued closure, reclamation,
  post-closure monitoring activities at the formal
  Nanisivik site.
       I am going to move on to the application that is
  before the Board.  As mentioned earlier, the
  application that's currently before the Board is for
  renewal/amendment of Type A Water Licence 1AR-NAN0914
  issued to CanZinco Limited, which later became as
  CanZinco Mines Limited for industrial undertaking at
  the Nanisivik Mine site.
       The scope of the application for the
  renewal/amendment of the licence is as follows:
  Five-year renewal of the licence to allow for continued
  water use and waste deposit for industrial undertaking,
  continued reclamation; post-closure monitoring
  activities at the formal Nanisivik Mine site; proposed
  amendment to the geotechincal monitoring requirements
  under Part 1 or Schedule 1 of the licence; proposed
  amendment to water quality monitoring requirements
  under Part 1 or Schedule 1 of the licence to include
  reduction in monitoring stations and sampling frequency
  for specific analytical parameters, continued treatment
  and management of contaminated soil, continued water
  quality monitoring and establishment of nonhazardous
  wastes landfill facility.
       Copies of the application materials that have been
  provided to the Board related to the application are
  available on the Board's FTP website.  In addition, our
  licencing administrator, Robin Ikkutisluk, has made
  available for publicly viewing at this hearing, paper
  copies of the documents that have been received to date
  for the application filed.  If you are interested in
  reviewing any of the documentation, please ask Robin.
       Based on the application, written submissions
  received, and information exchanged occurring prior and
  subsequent to the technical meeting and prehearing
  conversation, the Board Staff listed the following as
  issues, not in any particular order, to be addressed at
  this hearing:  Proposed landfill for treating
  nonhazardous waste, disposal option for the management
  of waste generated by the project, management plans
  related to the project, potential land-use conflicts
  and the status of land leases, methodology or approach
  related site-specific soil quality remedial objectives,
  proposed change to ensure technical water quality
  monitoring requirements, methodology for sampling and
  testing petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil,
  proposed financial security requirements for the
  project, timeline or schedule for completion of soil
  remediation and the project, environmental progress
  report for the 2014 period.
       It is our tradition to give respect to our elders;
  therefore, at any time during the proceedings, an elder
  may speak to an application that is before the Board.
  The Board, the applicant, and the interveners have
  requested to make a brief presentation to the community
  at this meeting.  I will ask the Board Staff to make
  this presentation and then CanZinco and the Interveners
  will follow.  There will be an opportunity for
  community members to ask questions and make comments to
  the Board through each presentation.
  Presentation by Nunavut Water Board Staff
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  My name
  is Sean Joseph, and I'll be doing the presentation on
  behalf of the Nunavut Water Board.
       So welcome, everyone, to the community
  presentation for Type A Licence 1AR-NAN0914
  renewal/amendment application.  This is a list of the
  topics that we will cover in the presentation.  We will
  look at background about -- background information
  about the NWB and NWB Type A licencing process; the
  scope of the current application before the Board; the
  application procedural history; the next step for the
  Type A application that is before the Board;
  interveners' participation, we will look at that as
  well; we will look at public participation in the
  process; the licences issued to the project; and the
  NWB Staff contact information, and then at the end we
  will leave a segment for questions or comments from the
  public and intervening parties.
       Before we get into the presentation our executive
  director, Damien Cote, will be distributing the
  Inuktitut version of the translation -- of the
  presentation, sorry, so that people who are interested
  in looking at the presentation in Inuktitut will have
  an opportunity to do so.
       So we'll start off with a little bit of background
  information about the NWB.  The NWB is an institution
  of public government established under Article 13 of
  the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.  The objects (sic)
  of the NWB is to provide the conservation and
  utilization of water in Nunavut, except in the -- in
  areas that are called national park areas, designated
  as national parks areas, in a manner that will provide
  for the optimum benefit for those waters for the
  Nunavut residents, in particular, and Canadians in
  general.
       The NWB has responsibilities and power over the
  use and regulation of water, as well as the management
  of freshwater in the Nunavut settlement area.
       So I'm going to move on to some of the
  authorizations that the NWB issue.  The NWB issues
  three types of authorizations.  It issues approval
  without licences, Type B licences, and Type A water
  licences.
       This week's hearing, this hearing -- this
  community session that we're having today and the
  hearing that we had earlier on today is for a Type A
  water licence application, so we would basically go
  through the process that is involved for a Type A water
  licence application.
       So basically, here is a pictorial of the process.
  It's an overview.  Typically, when we receive an
  application, we would confirm the classification of the
  application, based on the requirements in the
  regulation, and in this case, the application that
  CanZinco provided is for a Type A application in
  accordance with the Nunavut Waters and Surface Rights
  Tribunal Act in accordance with the Nunavut Waters
  Regulations as well.
       So following receipt, the NWB conducted a
  concordance assessment or review of the application,
  and in this case, CanZinco did provide some additional
  information, so there is a feedback loop here in that
  yellow box there that allows for transfer of
  information between the applicant and the Board.
  Following that, the NWB -- sorry -- issued a notice of
  the application, which is valid for usually 30 days,
  minimum.
       So moving on to the next slide.  During that --
  following the notice period, we allow parties to submit
  or make representation to the Board with respect to the
  application that is in front of the NWB.  If additional
  information is required on the -- after we receive
  these submissions from intervening parties, the
  proponent is given the opportunity to provide the
  additional information.  Following that, the NWB would
  hold a technical meeting and a prehearing conference,
  and following that, we would issue a prehearing
  conference decision.  Sometimes the prehearing
  conference decision includes a requirement for the
  applicant to provide additional information, and in
  this case, it did as well.  When the decision is
  issued, it typically marks the -- the 60-day minimum
  notice period that is required for a public hearing.
       So moving on to the slide of the Type A water
  licencing process.  So once the -- the prehearing
  conference decision is issued, which marks the -- the
  initial stage of the notice period for the hearing,
  parties are given the opportunity to exchange written
  intervention or information and to prepare for the
  public hearing, and earlier on today, we started the
  public hearing, so we are at the public hearing stage
  in the process.
       So following the public hearing, what we would do,
  the Panel members that are sitting, beside us, are
  going to issue a decision about the application, and
  that decision would go to the Minister of Aboriginal
  Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
       So the decision that the Panel is going to issue
  could be one of the following four options:  Which are
  in yellow at the bottom here, so the Panel can issue a
  decision to the Minister to approve the application and
  also issue a licence for the project.  The Minister, in
  turn, can approve the issuance of the licence, or the
  Minister, if he chooses, may not approve the issuance
  of the licence.
       On the flip side of the coin, we have a case where
  the NWB may issue a decision to not approve the
  application, and within that decision, the NWB would
  also include reasons for not approving the application.
  The Minister, in turn, would look at the decision that
  the NWB Panel makes and decide whether to approve that
  decision or whether to not approve that decision.
       So we're moving on to the next slide, so we'll
  just touch a little bit on the scope of the
  application.  The proponent went through that this
  morning.  The Chairman went through that this morning
  as well, so we'll briefly touch on those.  So the scope
  of the application is for a five-year renewal/amendment
  licence, and it's for the continued use of water and
  the deposit of waste in support of reclamation and
  post-closure monitoring activities.
       Second aspect of the scope of the application
  includes changes to geotechincal and water quality
  monitoring requirements, which is associated with Part
  (i) of the licence.
       Continuing on with the scope, the scope also
  includes studies pertaining to the development of
  site-specific remediation objectives for
  petroleum-hydrocarbon contaminated soil, continued
  treatment and management of PHC soil, and soil and
  water quality monitoring would continue as well.  The
  establishment of a small nonhazardous waste landfill is
  also included as part of the scope.
       I'm now going to move on to a little bit of the
  procedural history associated with the application.  In
  November 2013, the NWB received the application from
  Nyrstar on behalf of CanZinco Mines Limited for the
  renewal and the amendment of the licence.
       On November the 20th, 2013, the NWB acknowledged
  receipt of the application.
       On January 29th, 2014, the NWB distributed the
  application for completeness check and initial
  technical assessment.
       March 3rd, 2014, the NWB received comments with
  respect to completeness of the application from
  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada,
  DFO, DND, EC, and CanZinco.
       On April the 10th, 2014, the NWB received written
  request from the proponent to amend the licence terms
  to allow for on-site monitoring activities in June
  2014.  The NWB did not provide a written response to
  CanZinco in respect to that particular request.
       On April the 13th, 2014, CanZinco provided its
  response to the interveners' submissions on
  completeness and initial technical assessment.
       On May the 2nd, 2014, the NWB distributed the
  application publicly for a 30-day technical review
  period with a deadline for submissions set for June
  the 2nd, 2014, and by the date of -- by the deadline,
  we received submission from Aboriginal Affairs and
  Northern Development Canada, Department of Fisheries
  and Oceans Canada, Department of National Defence, and
  Environment Canada.
       On June the 18th, 2014, the technical -- the
  technical meeting and prehearing conference for the
  application was held with the applicant, interveners,
  and interested persons by way of teleconference.
       On June the 27th, 2013, the NWB distributed a
  draft list of commitments generated from the technical
  meeting and prehearing conference.
       On June 30th, 2014, the NWB received feedback on
  commitments that was generated during the technical
  meeting and prehearing conference from DFO, the
  applicant, and DND.
       On August the 29th, 2014, the NWB distributed
  correspondence indicating that the submissions of an
  updated abandonment and restoration plan had been
  delayed.
       On September the 8th, 2014, the NWB received
  submissions from the proponent in response to the
  technical hearing and preconference commitments.
       On September the 15th, 2014, the NWB received,
  from the applicant, a copy of the updated abandonment
  and restoration plan associated with the remediation of
  the -- the tank farm area that -- the tank farm area
  for the project.
       September the 10th -- or 17th, 2014, the NWB
  received final interveners' submission from AANDC, DFO,
  DND, and Environment Canada, by the specific
  submissions deadline date.
       On October the 6th, 2014, the NWB distributed
  correspondence that included the final agenda for the
  public hearing.
       So I'll just touch on the next steps in the
  application process or the licencing process --
  sorry -- for the application.  The public hearing for
  the application began earlier today and is expected to
  last until tomorrow.  Information filed with the Board
  and provided during the public hearing will assist the
  Board in determining whether all substantive issues
  have been sufficiently addressed prior to the Board's
  decision on the application.
       The technical meeting and prehearing conference
  was conducted by the Board Staff for the -- this public
  hearing, however, will be conducted or shared by the
  Panel members, as the Chairman mentioned this morning,
  and -- and led by the Board's Chair.  We are here to
  listen to the elders, the parties, the community
  members, and everyone in the public regarding the views
  on the licence application that is before the Board.
       So the next steps in the process, as I said --
  this is some additional steps.  Following the public
  hearing, the Panel will take some time to examine the
  evidence that has been provided and -- and consider all
  of the submissions, and the Panel will write to the
  Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
  Canada summarizing the Board's decision regarding
  whether a licence should be issued.  If the Board
  recommends that a licence should be issued, a draft
  licence would be attached to the Panel's decision that
  would be presented to the Minister of Aboriginal
  Affairs and Northern Development Canada.  Parties would
  be copied on the decision that the Board -- the Panel
  members issue.
       I just want to touch a little bit on the
  interveners' participation.  Most parties present here
  today, AANDC, DFO, DND, the Hamlet, the QIA, as well as
  the -- the applicant have participated in the licencing
  process from the -- from the onset.  They have provided
  the Board and the proponent with valuable technical
  information on relevant issues associated with the
  application.  They have also participated in formal
  and -- formal, as well as informal, discussions with
  the proponent and the Board which were aimed at
  resolving many of the issues identified.
       In terms of public participation, the Board
  encourages the -- all community members to participate
  in the public hearing.  Interested persons are also --
  can also contact Robin, our licencing administrator who
  is sitting near the entrance, if they want to look
  through the documents that have been received for
  the -- for the application.  The documents regarding
  the application are also available on the NWB website,
  and Robin Ikkutisluk also has information in terms of
  how you can access the website.
       In terms of licences issued to the project, as
  it -- as mentioned earlier on, the initial licences
  that were issued to the project were issued by the
  Northwest Territories Water Board and that was prior to
  Nunavut becoming a territory.  Details on the scope of
  these licences are not readily available in electronic
  form.  The NWB has issued three licences and two
  amendments to the project, and we talked about those
  all year round, so we will not go in depth, but the
  first licence is NWB1NAN9702.  That was issued to
  Nanisivik Mines Limited on July the 1st, 1997, and
  expired on June the 30th, 2002.
       In February 2001, the licence was assigned from
  Nanisivik Mine Limited to Nanisivik Mine, a division of
  CanZinco Limited.  The licence allowed for 180 cubic
  metres -- 180,000 cubic metres of water per year and a
  deposit of waste for mining activities.  Two amendments
  was issued to the licence to allow for additional
  changes to the operations of the project.
       Licence NWB1NAN0208, that one was issued on
  October the 1st, 2002, and expired on May the 1st,
  2008.  This licence also allowed for 180,000 cubic
  metres of water per year and the deposit of waste in
  support of reclamation and monitoring activities.
       The current licence that has expired, Licence
  1AR-NAN0914, that one was issued on April the 1st,
  2009, and expired on March the 31st, 2014.  It allowed
  for the use of 100 cubic metres of water per day and
  the deposit of waste during closure and reclamation, as
  well as monitoring activities.
       So that's a brief overview of the -- the
  application that is before the Board and the process
  that the application went through.  In terms of if you
  would like to -- to get in contact with staff members
  of the Board, this is -- this slide here shows the
  contact information for staff members.
       And I would -- this is the end of the
  presentation, and we invite members of the public or
  intervening parties to -- to ask any questions that
  they have with respect to the information that has been
  presented just a short while ago.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Any questions from the floor?  Public?  Tommy?
  Questions from Members of the Public
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        They've been in it for five
  years.
  THE INTERPRETER:         That -- the renewal for the
  licence, he's inquiring about that.
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        The CanZinco Mine, do you
  review -- you're going to be using the water licence
  for the next five years, and then after your five years
  have been renewed, the DND, they'll be taking over the
  renewal of the water licence?  That's my first
  question.
  THE CHAIR:               Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you for your question.
  In terms of the -- in terms of the licence that is
  being issued to CanZinco mines, if the Board were to
  renew the licence, it would not be necessarily assigned
  to DND.  If the DND needs a licence, they would have to
  apply separately.  There are provisions in the
  regulations that allow for the assignment of licences,
  so if, indeed, there is some agreement between DND and
  the proponent for the assignment of the licence, the
  Board may consider that, but generally, it would be two
  separate issues and the licence would not be
  automatically assigned to DND, if I understand your
  question correctly.
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you, yes.  You answered
  my question.
       And the next question I have is does the Water
  Board -- will you be arriving again once the DND starts
  on the wharf, the licence for renewal for water?  Will
  you be coming back to Arctic Bay to do public
  consultation for the water licence for DND?
  THE CHAIR:               Staff?
  MR. COTE:                Damien Cote with the Water
  Board.  The question, I believe, was will the Water
  Board come back to Arctic Bay in the event that DND
  would be applying for a water licence.  The Water
  Board -- on a case by case, the Panel members decide
  where we go, if it's in person, if it's done by
  teleconference, so yes, as they decided today to come
  here in person and consult with the community, there is
  a very good chance that, if there was another
  application, the Board would, again, come to the
  community to discuss and consult with the members of
  the community, but it's -- we only know, if it's in
  five years, the decision will be made closer to that
  date, but as you can see, we're hear today, and we're
  listening to the community.  Thank you.
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.  Those are my
  questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Anybody else for questions?
       If there are no further questions from the public
  community members, we will move on to the presentation
  by CanZinco Mines Limited.
  Presentation by Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Okay.  Thanks very much,
  Mr. Chairman.  Thanks to the Board for allowing us to
  come here and present.  And thanks to all the members
  of the community who have taken the time to come and
  join us here tonight and listen to what we have to say.
       My name is Johan Skoglund.  I don't know if you
  can see me back there, but my name is Johan.  I work
  for a company called Nyrstar which is a mining and
  metals company.  And as of 2011, we are responsible for
  the former Nanisivik Mine.  My role with Nyrstar
  is that I'm head of environmental for the company.  I
  lead our environmental function, and in that capacity,
  I'm also responsible for -- for our portfolio of closed
  sites or legacy sites of which Nanisivik is one of the
  most significant properties.
       I'm also joined here today by Arlene Laudrum from
  SRK who you might have seen previously.  She's spent a
  lot of time in the community.  She's my project manager
  for a lot of the work that we do at Nanisivik, and also
  by Claude Lavallee who is our environmental technician
  and helps us with a lot of the on-the-ground work --
  on-the-ground work in terms of sampling the water and
  other -- and other environmental activities.
       So at the front of your presentation that I think
  you've received, there is a summary in Inuktitut.  In
  terms of what I would like to talk to you about today,
  we'll -- we'll just provide a very, very brief
  introduction to -- to Nyrstar, to the company, tell you
  about who we are and what we do.  We'll then talk very
  briefly about the history of the site.  I think a lot
  of you know, probably, more about the history of the
  site than -- than what I do, but I'll give you a
  flavour of some of the closure works that have been
  done in the past leading up to today, and then after
  that, we'll get into the actual application that's
  in -- that's in front of the Board, our proposal, so
  we'll talk about the key components of that
  application, which are to do with monitoring of water
  quality, monitoring of geotechincal installations and
  works.  It's to do with the soil remediation at the
  dock site and also a new component is about a small
  landfill for nonhazardous waste that we'd like to
  establish.
       So in terms of the company Nyrstar, it's a -- it's
  a mining and metals business.  We are, at the moment,
  one of the biggest producers of zinc -- refined zinc in
  the world.  We also have some fairly substantial
  positions in lead and other base and precious metals,
  such as silver and gold, and actually, minor elements
  too, such as indium and tellurium and some other
  elements.
       We operate, as of today, nine mines, which are all
  located in the Americas, from Canada down to southern
  Chile, and we also have six smelting operations, five
  zinc smelters and one lead smelter located in the US,
  in Europe, and in Australia.  And at the moment, we
  employ about -- employ about six-and-a-half thousand
  people worldwide, and we're headquartered in
  Switzerland, which is where I'm based.
       I included this slide just to talk very briefly
  about some of the values that are important for us as a
  company.  So as I said, we had about -- we have about
  six-and-a-half thousand people working for us, and what
  sort of binds us together and what makes us work in a
  similar way is something we call "the Nyrstar way", and
  it's fundamental to the behaviours and the way we do
  business as a company.  I think that the principles
  that are relevant for the discussion in particular here
  today are those related to preventing harm, preventing
  harm to the environment, preventing harm to the people
  that work for us, preventing harm to the communities
  that we engage with.  It's about being open and honest,
  and this is an opportunity for us to be transparent and
  to talk to our -- you know, our stakeholders, our
  communities, and other members of the public about what
  we do.  And also keeping our word is very important.
  If we are committing to something, we follow through,
  and keeping our word is closely related to following
  the law, which we obviously take very seriously.  So
  that's very briefly about the company.
       And in terms of the -- in terms of the site, the
  Nanisivik Mine, as I said, it's got a bit of a history,
  and I think you probably know most of this, but the
  mine operated for about 25 years from the mid '70s to
  the early 2000s, and it produced two products, two
  different concentrates, some of lead and zinc.  It was
  the first mine in Canada north of the Arctic Circle,
  and it includes a number of different mining areas.
  Most of the metal and ore was mined underground, but
  there was also a few smaller open pits on the surface.
  There was a concentrator to produce the concentrate and
  a town site, as you know.  The concentrate was stored
  at the dock in a shed and shipped from there elsewhere.
       Importantly, from an environmental point of view,
  the tailings, the waste product that's produced was
  stored in what's referred to as the West Twin Disposal
  Area from which effluent flowed into the -- into the
  Twin Lakes Creek.
       The mine stopped operation in 2002, and then
  between 2002 and 2008, the various areas were
  rehabilitated.  Most of that work was done in 2004 and
  '5 and Nyrstar was been involved with the property
  since 2011 when we acquired the company that was
  previously responsible for the operations, which was
  Breakwater Resources.
       I included this slide just -- just to give us a
  sense for the work that actually has been done.  So
  there's this -- this layout or this map is showing the
  various areas where reclamation work has been
  undertaken, so importantly, you know, the tailing
  facility, there was a big piece of work to provide the
  cover on top of the tailing facility.  Similar type of
  closure works were also done on some of the open pits,
  the east -- the east open pit, as was another open pit
  here.  I believe there was a small one over here as
  well.  Those are the mining areas.  We also provided a
  cover on the landfill, which was over here, and the
  industrial site, which I believe was over here.  The
  town site was located here, and there was also
  reclamation work there, so a large piece of work was
  done around 2004 and '5 to -- to reclaim these various
  areas that the mine had been using, and I think, as we
  go through some of the other slides -- excuse me -- I
  would suggest that the work that has been done has been
  very successful.  We look at the monitoring results
  that we have and -- and the various water quality data
  and so forth that we have.  I'm certainly very pleased
  by how the previous reclamation works have been going
  and what they're achieving.
       So getting into talking quickly about the
  application, then, so in terms of an introduction, as
  was mentioned earlier by the Water Board Staff, we are
  currently operating under a licence that was issued to
  us in 2009, and it authorizes us to do monitoring of
  water quality.  It allows us to do monitoring of -- of
  the various earthworks and geotechincal-engineered
  structures that we used to reclaim the site, and it
  also allows us to do remediation of hydrocarbon or
  petroleum-hydrocarbon impacted soil at the dock site.
       I think it's important to recognize that the new
  application that's currently in front of the Board, in
  terms of these components, is actually very similar to
  the application -- the proposed new licence.  What
  we're asking for is very, very similar to -- to what we
  are currently approved to do, so on the bigger scheme
  of things, it's quite similar, and we will -- we will
  talk a bit about these undertakings on the coming
  slides.
       One thing that is new is that we will establish a
  small landfill for nonhazardous waste.  It's really
  just to do with things like rebar and wires and liners
  that's been generated during the ongoing reclamation
  and remediation works.
       It's important to recognize that, when it comes to
  water uses, it's a very small part of the activities
  that we undertake.  In terms of the licence
  application, we're not suggesting any changes in terms
  of what we're being asked -- what we're asking the
  Board from (sic).  When we look back over the previous
  licencing period for all years, except one year, we
  didn't use any water at all, and the only year we used
  water was 2013, and it was a very minor amount, 20
  cubic metres, so it's not a -- it's not a big part of
  the activities that we undertake.  We're suggesting
  that the licence or the renewed licence should be five
  years.  That's what we're asking for.
       So getting into some of these components that
  I talked -- that I -- that I mentioned before, so I'll
  say a few words about each, so in terms of water
  quality monitoring, it's something that we started,
  obviously, to do when the mine operated.  We continued
  water quality monitoring under the active closure
  works, and now, under the existing licence, we have
  continued with post-closure monitoring work, and it's
  done during periods of flow, during the summer.  The
  picture is showing a station referred to as 159-4, and
  it's the most important monitoring station because that
  is where effluent is flowing out from the tailing
  facility, which is the -- the key source of -- the key
  potential source of contaminants in the mine site, and
  in that station, we are being held to regulatory limits
  established by the Water Board that we need to follow,
  and I'm quite pleased to say that we have been able
  to -- to meet those limits during every monitoring
  occasion, during all samples that we have taken, and in
  most cases -- actually, in most cases, we've been
  significantly below the limits that are established by
  the Board.  In many cases, even below what the
  laboratory can detect.
       So in general, on the water quality monitoring
  that has been done, it's been successful.  It's
  demonstrated that the closure works and reclamation
  works that have been done are meeting the design
  intent.  They're functioning as intended.  With that in
  mind, we are asking the Board, obviously, to allow us
  to do water quality monitor because it's important, but
  we're asking for some small modifications to the
  monitoring program to reflect the results that we've
  achieved to date, so there's a couple of stations that
  we're asking to be removed.  We're asking that, instead
  of taking samples every two weeks, we're asking that
  it -- we're saying it's sufficient to take a sample
  every month, just once a month, and we're changing some
  of the -- some of the parameters that we're analyzing
  for.  But by and large, we will obviously continue to
  monitor for water quality because it's important.
       The next piece is about geotechincal monitoring,
  and it's, as I said this morning, when we -- the other
  presentation, it's sort of a similar story to water.
  The two items are closely connected, so the monitoring
  that we do do for geotechincal monitoring is
  essentially two-fold, so one component is that, in many
  of the areas that we've done reclamation work, we've
  installed instruments, and so in the -- all tailing
  facility, for example, and the pits, the landfill,
  there are a number of instruments installed that allow
  us to understand and see what's going on inside --
  inside the facilities and inside the waste, and what we
  want to see is that we -- the closure of some of these
  facilities are based on the concept that we want to
  promote freeze back.  We want the permafrost to
  reestablish itself and -- and keep the waste and the
  materials in a frozen state.  That's what we want to
  achieve, and these instruments that are allowing us to
  see how the freeze front is progressing through the
  materials.  So that's one piece of monitoring, to
  collect data from these instruments and evaluate it.
  The other piece is that we have an expert that comes to
  site every year and walks around over the entire site
  to look at all these different structures and see
  whether there's any erosion, to see whether there's
  thermal core testing and see what's going on.  So we've
  been doing that now for a number of years.
       And as I said, I'm very pleased with how this --
  what the results were telling us and what it's showing.
  The geothermal covers are functioning the way they're
  intending to.  We see every year that the permafrost is
  progressing further and further down into the waste
  materials, and we're also seeing that the layer at the
  top that's actively thawing and freezing, you know,
  between the seasons, that active layer is becoming
  thinner and thinner by year, which is how we want it.
  We want that layer to just stay at the very top, stay
  within the cover materials, and the data we have
  suggests that that is happening right now.  So that's
  very good news.
       So that's the situation as of today, and, you
  know, similar to the water quality monitoring program,
  we are suggesting that we must continue to do
  geotechincal monitoring, but we're asking for some
  small modifications for the program to account for the
  learnings and the data that we do have now and what
  we've -- what we understand about how these reclamation
  works are functioning.
       In terms of soil remediation at the dock site, I
  have two slides, so I'll just give you a brief
  introduction about what's been done under the existing
  permit and then talk a bit about -- the licence and
  then talk a bit about what we're asking for in the
  renewed licence.
       So this work has been ongoing for several years,
  and the first thing we did -- we started was to remove
  the tanks that existed on site, so that started in May
  and June 2011.  You see the tanks in the upper
  left-hand corner, so they were removed and taken off
  site in 2011.  After that, at the same time or during
  the same year, we also did a lot of tests in this area
  to -- to understand how much contaminated soil we
  actually had.  Before the tanks were removed, we
  weren't about to actually delineate and understand
  exactly how much contaminated soil there was.  So that
  work was done in 2011, and it told us that there was
  approximately 17,000 cubic metres of soil that was
  contaminated, mostly by diesel that had been leaking
  out and spilled from the old tanks.
       So with that understanding, we started to excavate
  the contaminated soil and to treat it, and that's what
  we've been doing, essentially, through 2012, '13, and
  '14, and the way we treat the soil is that we dig it up
  out of the ground and that we place it in lined
  facilities, and it's pretty small, but you can see on
  the top right-hand corner is a picture of a facility
  before we put any soil in it.  It's, essentially, a
  plastic liner that we put down, and we make sure that
  it's contained so that water can't -- can't escape
  from -- from the facility.  And then we place the
  contaminated soil, you know, within this lined area,
  and the treatment, then, happens through what's called
  bioremediation, so it's taking advantage of the small
  microorganisms that actually exist in the soil that
  actually break down the hydrocarbons, and we help them
  doing that by providing them with some extra food, some
  extra nutrients, which makes them work faster and more
  efficiently and that speeds up -- speeds up the
  bioremediation.
       So as of today, the excavation of soil from the
  ground is fundamentally complete.  There is a small
  lens of soil that we -- that still remains to be taken
  out.  When we did the last round of sampling before the
  end of this season, there was a small pocket of soil
  that was still contaminated, so we're going to take
  that out first thing next season, but other than that,
  the excavation should be finished, so what that leaves
  us with is more or less what you see on the picture.
  This picture is from July -- mid July, so it's not
  completely up to date, but almost up to date, so what
  we have, then, at the moment is about 6,000 cubic
  metres of contaminated soil that's sitting above
  ground, and it's located in three areas, so we have
  something in this area here, generally referred to as
  the upper treatment area, and it has ten of these --
  these types of cells in this area with soil in it.
  There's a similar treatment area with six cells that we
  call the lower treatment area.  It's located over here.
  There's more soil there, and then there's also soil
  that's stockpiled on this concrete pad, so it's the pad
  that was previously used for the concentrate storage
  shed, and we're taking advantage of the impermeable
  area that that provides to allow for temporary
  stockpiling of soil, so all those three areas in total,
  we have about 6,000 cubic metres of soil left.
       So that's the -- that's the situation as of today,
  and so for the permit -- for the licence application,
  we're fundamentally asking the Board to allow us to
  continue with what we have been doing, using the same
  approach to -- to treatment of the soil.  We think it's
  been effective, and -- and we'd like to continue until
  we're finished.  There's a few documents that we filed
  with the Board that's important for the work that we're
  doing, so for example, there's a plan, which is
  referred to as an abandonment and reclamation plan.  It
  talks about how we go about doing this work, so as
  we're now five years, you know, later -- later since
  the previous licence approval, we have filed a new -- a
  new abandonment and updated abandonment and reclamation
  plan.
       In that plan, we say that, if we continue the way
  we're doing, the works should be done by the end of the
  2016 season, and at that point, we will also
  decommission the treatment facilities removal, the
  liners, and vacate the area.
       In terms of checking the soil, there's a specific
  protocol that we use to -- to check that what's left
  behind is actually clean, so we have a process whereby
  we take samples and analyze those samples to understand
  whether we have, you know, cleaned up enough, as it
  were, whether they're finished, and we've sent -- we
  prepared a new memo to clarify how we do that
  confirmatory soil sampling that's been filed with the
  Water Board.
       The last bullet is about -- it's about the -- the
  objectives that apply to the work we do, so in our
  existing licence, there are certain limits for -- for
  petroleum hydrocarbons that we must meet for the soil
  to be considered clean.  Those limits that we are
  currently using are based on Canada-wide standards, so
  they are based on generic levels -- limits that can be
  applied all across Canada in any kind of setting, any
  type of environment, and been developed for that
  purpose.  What we are proposing and what we're
  currently doing is to develop -- for the key
  contaminant of concern, which is the diesel component,
  we are suggesting that it's actually more appropriate
  to develop an objective that takes into account the
  specific conditions and the specific types of
  contaminants that exist at the -- at the Nanisivik dock
  site, so we think this is -- you know, this is applying
  sound science, and we are working through this process
  now to come up with a new limit that is better suited
  for -- you know, for this particular site.
       So that is -- that is it on -- on the soil
  remediation.  The last component is about a small
  landfill that we have asked to establish, and really
  what this is about is that, when we have done the
  monitoring and remediation work over the last, you
  know, five to ten years, there's just been, you know, a
  certain amount of scrap that we've collected from
  around the site.  It's things like rebar.  It's things
  like metal wires.  There's sheet metal that can't
  really be used for anything, and we also have some
  liners from down from the dock site, so what we're
  suggesting is to establish a very small landfill to
  dispose of this inert -- inert waste, and we think it's
  going to be about 50 cubic metres in total.  It's a
  very small amount, but the preferred location we have
  chosen for this landfill is around here, and it's at
  the location of the former warehouse yard, which is
  just opposite the road from the old industrial site.
  So that's the location.  It's on Government of Nunavut
  land, so we'll, essentially, place the waste there, and
  then we'll cover it with soil, and then at the end,
  when we're finished, we will use the liners down from
  the dock site to provide a more substantial cover,
  which will then, again, be covered by more soil to
  prevent any access from animals, and we will obviously
  monitor the performance of this landfill going forward
  as part of our other monitoring land activities.
       So I believe that's all we have, so I'd like to
  thank you all for listening and open to any questions
  that anyone might have.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Before we move on
  to the questioning, I'd like to suggest that we take a
  15-minute health break.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  Questions from Members of the Public
  THE CHAIR:               Welcome back.  Martha
  Naqitarvik, you have a question?
  MARTHA NAQITARVIK:       I'm a regular person.  I'm
  Martha.  I live (sic) in Arctic Bay all my life.  I'm
  not migrated anywhere.  I have lived here only.  When
  Nanisivik Mine was starting, maybe they were drinking
  different water.  From the reports we hear about
  Nanisivik progress in the mining, I don't know.  I'm
  just a regular person.  I'm not involved in any
  agencies or board, so -- but I want to talk to those
  people over there.
       Yes, I can talk.  The fishing lake -- that person
  there, the presenter that talked earlier, the boss --
  he's the current boss, I guess.  The place over the
  lake, which is -- they use the water from that lake.
  The watershed areas or even at the -- they are -- the
  lake is not contaminated from the mining activity, so
  although I don't believe because there's impact to the
  soil in the area, and wind carries these contaminants.
  That lake, which is -- women go there to fish, so we
  know not too many people here because a lot of them are
  out there, fishing.  So that lake, Kuhulu Lake, the
  fish -- when you touch the water, sample, it's -- the
  report, I hear that it's as clear as rabbit hair.  It's
  so fine and clear, to my understanding anyways.  So
  that fishing lake, I wonder is it being tested too?  Do
  you take samples from the Kuhulu Lake, the lake I'm
  referring to?  That's the question to the proponent.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Yeah.  Johan Skoglund from
  CanZinco --
  MARTHA NAQITARVIK:       Wait.  She'll sit down first.
  But going back to that Kuhulu Lake, women go there and
  same with these other -- like, you said that it's so
  clean that it's like rabbit fur, so clean, white and
  clean, so does it get sampled too, the landfill --
  proposed landfill site as well?  When Nanisivik
  started -- I'm not sure it's -- when you're -- there
  used to be that here, Arctic Bay area, had lots of
  rabbits, but they would eat bread from the landfill,
  Arctic Bay landfill.  They eat, so we stop eating the
  rabbits in the Arctic Bay area.  We have to go away
  from Arctic Bay to harvest the rabbits, quite a ways.
  Yeah.  We have to go quite a ways in order to harvest a
  good rabbit, so how many, up to now, feed on water --
  the --
  THE INTERPRETER:         Okay.  So she's talking about
  Ferguson (phonetic) who started to mine.
  MARTHA NAQITARVIK:       He never provided Arctic Bay
  any benefits, monetary or otherwise, no other benefit
  to the community, so this area we avoid harvesting the
  animals here, and the water, you're saying that it's so
  clean that we could drink it, but we are hearing you
  that it's clean, but we're not going to drink it, but
  July and August, when we go boating to the area,
  Nanisivik area, the water, creek, it's all yellow and
  littering (sic) even.  It's the oily substance
  coming -- seeping out, and we went down to the ocean.
       Now, we -- the land around the area contaminated
  with the petroleum and oil product -- then we went
  across, and the area, we could see a shiny surface, and
  you cannot live in that area because even the air
  quality is so bad all the -- lots of money was invested
  in -- generated from the mining activity, but the
  amount of people that are more impacted are not here
  tonight, so some people are -- always agree, whereas I
  am not always agreeing for certain things.
       So, Nanisivik Boss, in the past the two elders,
  her husband, Attagutsiak and Kadluk (phonetic), those
  two were assigned, because they couldn't understand, so
  they just get them to sign agreement.  But afterwards,
  we found out the side effects of that mining.
       So you're saying the area is clean around
  Nanisivik Mine site.  Even if you tell me that, I'm not
  going to believe you.  That water, a lake with fish, if
  you test it, I want to continue testing that because
  women are going up there fishing.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant, is there an answer?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I'll respond to the matters, I think, that I'm able to
  respond to.  So I think the first question was about
  Kuhulu Lake, which, to my understanding, it's located
  right there.  It's actually outside the mining area.
  It was not -- it was outside the areas that were
  affected by mining, and it is my -- and we -- for that
  reason, we did not have impacts on that lake, and we
  are not sampling it at this point in time.  It's my
  understanding that it's -- that it is being used today
  for fishing, and I -- I see no reason for why that
  wouldn't be appropriate given that it was outside the
  mining -- the mining area.
       The other -- the other point that was discussed
  was the landfill, the old landfill, which is located
  here.  The old landfill has been closed; however, I am
  aware that, while the landfill was still operating, the
  operating practices were not always perfect.  You know,
  there were things put in the landfill that perhaps
  shouldn't have been put in the landfill.  Having said
  that, we have monitored the runoff from the landfill
  now for a long time, and we haven't seen any
  contaminants seeping out of the landfill.  I believe
  in -- just after closure, I believe we saw some
  indications of hydrocarbons, but during the monitoring
  that we have done under the existing licence, we
  haven't seen any indications of contaminants seeping
  out of the landfill, which is most likely attributed to
  the fact that the waste is now frozen solid.
       I think that is what I'm able to sort of provide
  at this point in time.  We did discuss this morning
  about the two creeks and whether they would be suitable
  for drinking water.  It is my understanding that,
  because this is a mineralized area, those creeks
  probably have never been particularly suitable for --
  for drinking.  In the Chris Creek watershed, which is
  up here, the contaminants that we are measuring today
  are at the same level and, in some instances, lower
  than when mining started, so in that watershed, we are
  back to -- to the baseline, back to the baseline
  concentrations, and in the Twin Creeks watershed, we're
  also measuring good water quality, but whether it's
  drinkable or not, I'm not able to answer that question,
  and essentially, it's a mineralized area.  We still
  have a lot of outcrops of sulfites and metal-bearing
  rocks which would make, you know, these watercourses
  naturally unsuitable for drinking.
  OLAYUK KIGUTIKAJUK:      I have to say something too.
  In the Inuit traditional knowledge, I have been there.
  I heard linking areas with the lakes -- because they
  lived on the land, from the land.  Like, the -- not
  to play around in the creeks or in the watershed areas,
  so they can slow a human occupation, so we will
  continue to use the land because we are brought up on
  the land.  We will be harvesting.  We -- I like to go
  out on hunting trips, so we try to -- traditionally,
  not women, we weren't seen as hunters, but I'm a
  person -- regular person too.  You know, there's
  certain things that I cannot do, but Kuhulu Lake is the
  area that I go fishing past Nanisivik.  It's kind of
  difficult going there, but still we go there, and you
  didn't finish the bottom of that lake.
       Two -- a day before yesterday, I went there.  The
  women were there.  Women are able to go by ATV, but
  they don't go by truck or vehicles, and it's not a real
  good place to go driving with the trucks.  So we are
  able to go there with the ATV, so you didn't finish the
  bottom of the lake.  Maybe you didn't quite finish it,
  so whatever you're saying, we are Inuit, so we can go
  anywhere we're able to travel by sleigh in the snow,
  where we can travel.  We see things, so you're saying
  that you remediated the area through a natural -- as
  close to natural.  I'm saying no because you think --
  you're not going to -- we're not going to see them, but
  we see the bottom of the lake.  There is this size fish
  there, and we know that good fish, but you have to go
  way down to the bottom to catch them.  Regular normal
  fishing lakes with that size fish are closer to the
  surface, so it looks like the fish are afraid to come
  up closer to the surface.  They stay closer to the
  bottom, so -- inside the lake, in the water.  Those --
  whenever the fish -- or when you're training your --
  some kind of activity related to -- near the lake, when
  you are looking at the lake bottom, there is some
  things there that are not natural, manmade.  They
  spread some material there and talking about growth or
  fencing, so they're at the bottom of the lake, so if
  you see -- if you go up tomorrow to the lake, we can
  show you where they are, those materials so that you
  can see firsthand what they are.  So I'm glad to be --
  somebody went on the lake.
       People are going up tomorrow, so sometimes we
  don't always believe the report.  Perhaps they're
  missing some areas that were impacted too from the
  mining, so you know, we don't always finish --
  completely finish whatever we have a goal that.  So
  same with the mining, after they do it, they don't do
  completely remediate -- reclaim the area.  So we go
  somewhere that we are -- south of here, we are used to
  eating the landlocked char, so same as we like eating
  the fish because it reminds us the areas we used to
  live, so there was something going on that, you know,
  they missed either deliberately or avoided cleaning up,
  so do it properly.  That's all I'm saying.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Martha?  Martha?
  MARTHA NAQITARVIK:        Myself, I'm not concerned
  about the -- what we heard about the metals and
  leaching and seeping out and so on, yes, at times, it
  is happening -- or they were happening, but the
  chemical, I don't know if there's an Inuktitut name for
  it, but I know chemical.  We know the term in English
  chemical means it's bad for a human, so we don't have
  Inuktitut names for those chemicals, but there's
  something, but we're not concerned about them because
  we don't know if they are hazardous to our health.
       Or -- that tailings pond that was covered and the
  mine owners had to cover the tailings pond because they
  know there's chemicals and other contaminants that were
  dumped into the tailings pond for so many years, so it
  was going to be monitored for a number of years too.
  So we know that it's not going to a perfect reclaim, so
  when Nanisivik mine started, a woman -- young women
  were told to be careful because their creek -- water
  going into the creek, the contaminant, whatever it is,
  the chemicals was being contaminated in the creek going
  down, so we were drinking that or even going down to
  the lake with the fish, so the people that were not
  working for the mine were told to relocate from their
  camping sites, so we're saying that, yes, the drinking
  water was discoloured.  It was not natural colour, so
  the creeks were -- we have no way to sample.  We have
  no professionals to take samples from the water, so who
  knows that -- if -- we don't know if we're being
  affected or impacted because, you know, the -- there
  are real people here.  Hudson Bay Company, weather
  station, so we were a very small population.  We did
  live here.
       When the ship came in -- the medical ship came in
  and the supply ship came in, that's the only time we
  came here, to Arctic Bay, earlier; only sometimes.  And
  we didn't -- we had water from the puddles around the
  hills, so -- from the ice, glaciers, and puddles
  from -- when ice boat came in, two boats, would go pick
  up ice from the iceberg because there was no water
  here.  Hudson's Bay and the weather station was here to
  collect water for the non-Inuit that were living here,
  and we were not allowed to camp or take from the area,
  so while Canada's Prime Minister didn't trust it.  They
  got somebody to come in and establish the navy
  facility.  They said the Inuit are getting sick,
  getting skin infections and so on.  There's a lot of
  human -- unnatural human infection, so there was -- we
  could go looking for minerals to go after.  They didn't
  worry about the people living in the area, so -- but
  they said the women was wearing seal skin, and even in
  springtime, July, when the ships started coming in,
  they use a small soap, whatever exposed skin, they
  would wash them.  When the ships started coming in,
  those men on the ship were craving for a woman, so they
  had real good medicine, tea, so why aren't we getting
  any benefit?  The -- Canada's prime minister, he came
  in here to Nanisivik port, and why were we not
  consulted as Inuit?
  THE CHAIR:               Tommy?  Tommy?
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you, Chairman.  I'm
  Tommy Tatatuapik from Arctic Bay.  I have a question,
  three questions.  First question:  Earlier today, I
  asked that what -- I missed some of the question.  When
  Nanisivik was operating, we had water source, the town,
  from the lake -- Twin Lakes.  That afterwards, we
  would -- you could get the water from the same or would
  you get the water from the Kuhulu Lake?  Do you have
  any plans where you would get the water for domestic
  use?  Which area or lake or creek would you get the
  water from for domestic use?  Thank you.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  We are not abstracting any water for potable use,
  neither from east Twin Lakes, nor from the creek, and
  we will not do that either going forward.
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.  My second question
  on page 22, the metal of the tailings pond has been
  covered now, and it's no longer a lake.  Back when it
  was a pond, the -- it was like water.  The bottom could
  not freeze, and -- because the water kept -- so after
  the -- it's been covered, has the water goes to the
  bottom?  Or is there evidence of a seepage from the --
  the tailings pond cover?  So my question is is it
  permanently frozen now right through?  Or is there
  certain pockets that are still some warm?
  THE CHAIR:               CanZinco?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Yeah.  Johan Skoglund from
  CanZinco.  Thanks for the question.  It's a good
  question.  The tailings are, at this point in time,
  not -- not frozen solid to the bottom.  We think that
  will take a number of years to come before that is the
  case.  What we are seeing is that the freeze front is
  progressing deeper and deeper every year, and actually,
  the last couple of years, it's progressing a little bit
  faster than in previous years, probably reflecting the
  likely colder temperatures in the last couple of years.
  What we're seeing now is very much what we predicted
  before we placed the cover, so the freeze front is --
  is progressing as -- as we thought it would, and
  eventually, it will all be frozen all the way through,
  but we're not there yet at this point in time.
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.  The third question
  or statement, in -- the Nanisivik site is close to
  Arctic Bay and people will go there, and it used to be
  mining, so we want that because it's part of our
  environment and our area, so in the application for
  five years, water-use licence, so I want that to be
  approved for five years because to monitor -- to
  continue monitoring the site to make sure that there
  are no impacts on it.  We care in the community too,
  and we want to hear what the results are of that
  monitoring so that the -- it's not included.  It should
  be included in the issuance of the water licence.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I agree with the comments that were made.  It is very
  important that we continue to monitor for water
  quality.  As we talked about this morning, I don't
  think it's sufficient to just do another five years.  I
  think, once this licence term is up, we will apply for
  another licence that allows us to continue to monitor
  for a longer period of time because, before we stop
  monitoring, we need to be very, very certain that the
  conditions are stable, that everything is working the
  way it's intended to, so I agree with the comment that
  was made that we need to continue to monitor.
       The results out of the monitoring are compiled and
  sent to the Water Board every year so that they're
  publicly available, and we also have people here, like
  Claude and Arlene spends quite a bit of time here, so
  we can also help to explain about some of those
  results, what they actually -- what they actually mean,
  so ...
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Do you have
  something?
  THE INTERPRETER:         He wants a pointer.
  SAKIASIE QAUNAUQ:        The tailings pond and the
  water source lake, the tailings pond ...
       This was the tailings pond.  In the summertime,
  this was the water source lake.  There was a pipe, and
  there were connections there.  That water source lake,
  it was the same level before, but when you cover that,
  they left the area, so the water source was higher now.
  The level of the tailings pond was higher than the
  water source, so it was seeping -- it was going to
  nowhere, the water source lake, so there's a -- there's
  a road and only local hunters, they go to town taking
  water for domestic use from that lake, so I want that
  lake to be tested to make sure that there's no seepage
  from the old tailings pond going to that lake because
  it's lower down, and make sure that the local hunters,
  when they are going to the area hunting for ptarmigan
  and rabbits, are aware that that lake is safe or not,
  so -- because we want to know that lake, whether it's
  suitable or whether it's contaminated.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  What we have been doing is we have been sampling at the
  outflow of the lake, so we do have a monitoring point
  there that will tell us the quality that's flowing out
  of the lake, so that should provide -- that provides a
  pretty good sense for the quality of the water that is
  in the lake, and what we did see, a couple of years
  ago, was slightly higher levels of sulfate, which is
  one constituent.  What we did find, though, is that
  that came naturally from some upgrading areas up here.
  I think that's -- that's pretty much -- and this is all
  described in the monitoring program that we have been
  doing and in the materials that we have filed with the
  Board.  We have not specifically tested the lake for
  drinking water purposes or anything to do with that
  because that is not our purpose, and that's not part of
  our licence, but we do have data of the water that's
  flowing out of -- flowing out of the lake.  I don't
  know if that fully answers your question, but that is,
  you know, what we have at this point in time.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Before I move on
  to the next person, I was reminded that everybody that
  is coming in, please sign in with Robin, if you haven't
  already done so.  You're reminded to sign in with
  Robin, and thank you for your patience on that.
       And, Martha?
  MARTHA NAQITARVIK:       Are they going to have the
  water source for -- when they start going -- they said
  they're not going to be using the water source in here,
  so where is the water source -- which water source will
  you be using when it's being occupied?  I mean, because
  we're using the route all the way through the roads,
  and we always use the land -- lands around -- in that
  area.  Is it because the water is too contaminated that
  it cannot be used for human consumption?  Because we
  want to make sure that we have pure water at the time
  because everybody says that we always have clear water,
  but -- but is it because -- but the -- when is the lake
  water -- all the little lakes that have been there will
  no longer be used for drinking water.  Is it because
  it's contaminated?  This is very important for all of
  us.  We mostly use sites of the water amortization, and
  is it because -- I want to make sure that we are
  informed if the water is not fit for human consumption,
  even around the -- beyond the area of the mine site.
  And if you guys are warned that these lakes and any
  water source is not fit for human consumption, we have
  to be reported to.
       And thank you for coming to explain to us, and
  our -- we have hunters, our families are hunters, and
  the sea ice will be changing, and we rely heavily on
  hunting and harvesting on that land.  Thank you.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I think all we can say is the reason we are not using
  any natural water for portable purposes is that it's
  not practical that -- the work we're doing is very,
  very limited.  There's a few operators and consultants
  from -- a few operators from Arctic Bay and a few
  consultants from the south that work at the dock site
  in the summer.  They travel in and out of Arctic Bay
  every day, so it's much easier for them.  They just
  bring the water that they need for the day from -- from
  Arctic Bay and the same with Claude when he's out
  taking his samples.  He just brings a bottle of water
  that he needs for the day, so for us, we have a very,
  very small need for water, and the water that we need
  for daily consumption, it's easier for us just to take
  it from Arctic Bay.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Next we have AANDC
  to do a short presentation.
  Presentation by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
  Development Canada
  MR. PARSONS:             Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Board
  members.  Good evening, everyone.  First I'd like to
  thank the people of Arctic Bay for coming out to this
  meeting.  We're happy to have the opportunity to let
  you know about what the Department's concerns are
  relating to the water licence process.
       So first I'm going to go through just a brief
  outline.  Throughout this presentation, I will refer to
  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada as
  "the Department".  I will provide a review of the
  technical comments that the Department previously
  provided.  Although resolution of these comments and
  recommendations with CanZinco has not been confirmed,
  the Department is confident that they can be resolved
  before a water licence is approved.
       Our first comment and recommendation has to do
  with the contaminated soil that remains at a former
  tank farm.  AANDC is concerned about the in-use of the
  contaminated soil at the former tank farm since it
  directly relates to public health and the environment;
  therefore, the Department recommends the proponent
  describe and explain, in more detail, the in-use of the
  contaminated soil following remediation.
       Our second comment and recommendation revolves
  around the site-specific quality objectives that
  CanZinco mentioned in their presentation.  The
  Department finds the approach and methods for
  developing the site-specific soil quality objectives
  have been described at a very high level in the
  document prepared by the proponent's consultant
  Hemmera.  However, the Department finds the rationale
  and utility of the comparison has not been
  well-developed in the proposal.  Therefore, AANDC
  recommends more detail and clarification on the
  approach and methodology for the site-specific soil
  remediation objectives.
       The second recommendation/comment concerning the
  approach and methodology for the site-specific quality
  objectives -- at this time, the proponent states that
  the most recent analytical results that will provide
  the basis for establishing these objectives are not yet
  available.  Because the results will be essential for
  formulating and assessing the development of the
  proposed objectives, AANDC recommends that the licencee
  submit the most recent analytical results when they
  become available to the Water Board for additional
  review before the Board approved their proposed
  approach to the establishment of the site specific
  quality objectives.
       Our final recommendation revolves around financial
  security for the site.  AANDC appreciates the updated
  security assessment provided by CanZinco as it
  pertained to the soil treatment facility.  However, the
  Department recommends that this security assessment not
  be accepted until more details and results are known in
  regards to the site specific soil quality objectives.
  AANDC at this time also recommends that a security
  assessment of the whole mine site be prepared using
  Reclaim Version Number 7 and provide this to the Board
  for review prior to the licence being renewed.
       These are just a couple of pictures, and, our
  apologies, they are not from 2014.  They are from 2013,
  but the first picture to the left showing the excavator
  in the background just shows some of the biopiles in
  the foreground, as well as the excavator and a
  stockpile of contaminated soil in the background.  And
  the picture to the right is a close-up of one of the
  biopiles at the former tank farm.
       The Department would like to conclude by noting
  that the licencee to date has done an adequate job in
  carrying out its closure plan for the Nanisivik Mine
  property.  With respect to the licence application
  presented, however, a few key areas needs further
  elaboration and consideration.  Specifically, there are
  three general areas where this additional information
  needs to be provided and reviewed by the Board before
  the licence is issued.  The Department would like to
  see more detail regarding the in-use of the
  contaminated soil following remediation; more
  clarification, details, and proposed methodology and
  approach for developing the site-specific soil quality
  objectives, and finally an updated security assessment
  for the entire mine site using the latest version of
  reclaim.  Thank you.  If anyone has any questions on
  our work in this licence review, we're happy to take
  them at this time.
  Questions from Members of the Public
  LILY KIGUTAK:            My name is Lily.  I just
  wanted to find out -- well, I wanted to know how this
  will affect the application for the mine, for the --
  for the water licence.  Can you just -- I just want you
  to clarify why you're opposing the licence.
  MR. PARSONS:             At this time, we're not
  opposing the licence.  We're just presenting our
  concerns and recommendations for those concerns.
  It's -- these recommendations are presented to the
  Board, as well as the proponent, and the issues of the
  licence will be the Board's decision, but we aren't
  opposing the licence at this time.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            Okay.  Thank you very much.  I
  just wanted to clarify that.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Anybody else?
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.  I have a question.
  It may not apply to this to what you're doing here.
  Maybe I'll have a question to AANDC.  The landfill, not
  for lagoon or anything, are they -- are you guys
  thinking about backhaul?  (OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN) The
  landfill plan, because you were saying that you will
  backhaul some materials to Arctic Bay.  So who will
  decide which is the best option whether to just bury it
  there or backhaul it to Arctic Bay to the landfill?
  Who will decide which option to go with in relation to
  the landfill?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you very much,
  Mr. Chair.  This is Karen Costello on behalf of
  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
       I understood the question was -- from Tommy was
  who will determine if material will be backhauled to
  Arctic Bay; is that correct?
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Yes.  For example, people will
  be there at the site, and there will liquid and waste
  generated from the activity at the mine site, so if
  they establish a landfill site there for metals and
  steel and -- so would you -- if you determine that it's
  better to leave it on location or establish a landfill,
  would you include the Inuit to determine the location
  of the new landfill site?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you very much,
  Mr. Chair.  Karen Costello for Aboriginal Affairs and
  Northern Development.
       So I appreciate the clarification.  I now
  understand that there's a -- asking if Inuit will be --
  if their advice will be sought for the location of the
  landfill site, and I believe that is a question that
  should go to the applicant and not Aboriginal Affairs
  and Northern Development.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Yeah.  Johan Skoglund from
  CanZinco.  I actually didn't hear the question the same
  way.  I heard who will decide whether it's preferable
  for CanZinco to build their own landfill versus taking
  the same material and disposing it in the existing
  Arctic Bay landfill.  That's -- that was the question
  that I thought I heard.
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Yes.  That was my question
  because I didn't understand how the waste generated
  during the reclamation and the activities were -- how
  are you going to manage it?  Are you going to leave it
  on site?  Or are you going to bring it to Arctic Bay
  landfill?  Or -- if you decide to leave it on site,
  will you consult the Inuit to determine the best
  location to put a landfill site so that we could at
  least be a participant in determining the best location
  for the landfill site?  Is that understood?  Did you
  understand that?
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I do think that question is for me.  So I'll take that
  question.
       When we -- when we looked at the number of
  different locations for the landfill, the one that we
  came up with was the one that met our siting
  requirements that I believe are outlined in the
  documentation that we filed, so as we believe it's a
  suitable location, and the way we manage the landfill
  too is that when we place material we will immediately
  cover it with layers of soil.  There will be new
  materials and then we will place more soil on it, and
  it will prevent any sort of cavities in -- or hollow
  areas, so we've gone through the siting analysis to
  select the suitable location that we believe is -- is
  appropriate.
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Olayuk Naqitarvik?
  OLAYUK NAQITARVIK:       My question:  There's an
  environmental person in the community, not -- okay.
  Someone that's monitoring the site.  Can you hire,
  like, an Inuit beneficiary to do the monitoring to work
  for the community on behalf of the Inuit beneficiaries?
  Or would you advertise the person to do the monitoring
  work because the current monitoring person is not
  local, if you understand that.
  THE CHAIR:               CanZinco?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  In terms of the monitoring we do, it's really for -- a
  job for one person, and we hired a person who's -- who
  has the most capability to do that work, and at this
  point in time, Claude is by far the most qualified
  environmental technician that I think is available.  He
  has got history going back to when the mine was
  operated, and he has done this type of work and has
  substantial knowledge about the mine site and the
  monitoring we do so that is my choice at the moment for
  monitoring.  For the work that we do at the dock site
  for the clean-up of the contaminated soil we have used
  and continued to use local staff out of Arctic Bay for
  that work from a local firm that includes Inuit
  operators.
  THE CHAIR:               Martha?
  MARTHA NAQITARVIK:       I'm leaving soon, so my last
  comment is, you said Claude is working there, so I'm
  suggesting that there should be a beneficiary -- an
  Inuit beneficiary with him so that he -- going back to
  the water, is the water so contaminated that you refuse
  to drink it?  Is it because it's so contaminated that
  you bring your own water to drink on site?  So from
  what I'm hearing that all the water areas are
  contaminated, so the -- is it -- the water undrinkable
  that's why you are not drinking from it?
       You know, in regards to -- the Inuit here, Arctic
  Bay water, we only use the lake water for domestic
  laundry and stuff, not for drinking, but we know the
  elders are getting cancer and other communities are
  getting -- getting sick.
  MS. LAUDRUM:             Arlene Laudrum, SRK Consulting
  on behalf of CanZinco.  The water quality in east Twin
  Lake, which is the one beside where the tailings are
  covered, that is still drinkable water, and there --
  there's nothing wrong with taking the water from that
  lake.  Kuhulu Lake is also drinkable.  They are too far
  for the workers that are down on the dock to go and get
  their drinking water regularly.  It's easier for us,
  when we're staying in Arctic Bay to drive out to site
  and carry a bottle with us.  We don't drink out of the
  creek down at the dock site because that water has got
  elevated metals in it, and sometimes it's kind of red
  too, and no, the drinking water is east Twin Lake and
  Kuhulu Lake.  It's always been that way, and it stays
  the same now.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  SAKIASIE QAUNAQ:         Going back to the landfill
  site.  Will the -- the oil and waste are generated from
  the activity.  They want to establish a landfill site.
  They said -- somebody said somebody from here, local,
  should perhaps take -- backhaul that to Arctic Bay
  landfill site, but I used to be a Hamlet councillor.
  There's people coming in to work like the Kudlik
  Construction companies, and they leave all the heavy
  equipment here, and we dump them to our landfill, and
  so we don't want any more litter and waste from the
  companies to be dumped at the landfill.  So they
  probably are continuing with that, so our landfill is
  completely full to the capacity, so -- and I would
  suggest that they find a suitable landfill site, leave
  it there, instead of backhauling it here, so I prefer
  that they find a suitable landfill and our Arctic Bay
  landfill is too small to accommodate other waste from
  other areas, so I prefer that they find a new landfill
  site.  That was the case of Kudlik.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Next we have DND.
  Presentation by Department of National Defence Canada
  MR. LEMAY:               My name is Louis LeMay.  I'm
  with Defence Construction Canada.  I represent the
  Department of National Defence at this hearing.  I'd
  like to thank the Board for allowing us to present
  tonight, and I'd like to thank the community for
  participating.
       Our role and mandate -- the Department's role and
  mandate with regards to this hearing is that we are
  going to be the future administrator of the property
  and owner for the Crown at the Nanisivik site.  The
  other thing is we are also -- DND is the implementer of
  the Nanisivik naval facility construction project,
  which is -- the contractor has been awarded last June,
  in which the contractor has mobilized equipment and is
  currently on site starting their work, their prep work.
  They are putting up the construction camp, and they are
  getting ready to establish the quarry to produce
  aggregates for the construction.  And the other
  thing -- the other role is we want to provide input to
  the Water Board with regards to this water licence
  application as it -- as it relates to the -- DND's
  interest for the future land-use planning for the site.
       DND acknowledges that CanZinco's remediation work
  with the former tank farm area showed progress during
  the last season.  DND has reviewed the water use
  licence submission, provided comments, and it is our
  understanding that there are -- there are still
  contaminated soil that remains to be excavated in 2015.
       These are the comments that were issued by
  clarification request by -- during the review and
  submission by DND.  The quality of the -- there is one
  berm that is remaining on the site from the original
  construction of the tank farm that has not been
  touched, so we were asking about the quality of that
  berm, whether it is contaminated or not.  CanZinco
  provided a response saying that they have some test
  results in 2011, and -- and they will incorporate that
  information in their final report for this field
  season; however, in their presentation, it's the
  understanding that they -- earlier this morning is that
  they will be sampling this berm in 2015 as when they
  start up their operations in 2015 to confirm the
  results that they've had in the past, whether that berm
  is clean or not.
       DND is waiting for that information and would like
  to receive the results of the test early on in 2015 as
  this impacts our construction contract.  There is a
  potential of impacting because our contractor --
  CanZinco's remediation work has impact on our project
  in a way that we had to do -- put conditions in our
  contract to restrict access to certain areas of the
  site by the contractor, which includes the area where
  they are remediating right now.  We have restricted
  access until 2016, and at that time, we need this area
  to be clean; otherwise it impacts with costs, which
  consequently impacts taxpayers.
       The second clarification was DND asked what
  technical guidance, official technical guidance
  documents were being followed in their remediation
  activities.  CanZinco did provide response and
  enumerated the federal guidelines for landfill,
  petroleum, the Environment Canada guidelines for
  contaminated site, the guidance manual for sampling
  analysis for -- in CCME guidelines, and technical
  guidance on contaminated site statistical application
  for stockpiles from the BC ministry of environment.
  DND's outcome from this response is that we expect to
  see more detail referenced to these guidelines in their
  report.  When we submit their annual report, we expect
  them to provide reference to these guidelines when
  they're providing analysis and -- and results of
  their -- of their remediation.
       In concerns, DND has current -- our current
  concerns with the site is the condition at the site.
  We inspected last September.  This is one of the -- a
  picture of one of the treatment cells, and the red line
  on the picture shows the top of the containment berm,
  the berm that contains -- which is lined -- the
  material, and you can see that where the -- on the
  right side, where the material was around -- where the
  equipment accessed to site, we cannot see the liner,
  and the pile seems to be gradually going right out to
  the outside of the containment berm, and on the edges,
  it is piled to the top of the containment berm, so we
  have -- our concern with the possible migration of
  contaminants from inside the containment cells to the
  outside with spring runoff.  So we have a concern about
  that.
       The other thing we have is a question to the Board
  is, if CanZinco finishes their remediation work in the
  footprint of our construction, which is the old tank
  farm, and we all agree that it is clean, based on their
  results, and the Nanisivik construction project starts
  excavations in there to build the infrastructure and we
  encounter a cell or a portion of contaminated soil that
  was not detected by CanZinco at the time of their
  investigation and it is not a result of our
  construction activities, I guess the question is who is
  responsible to treat this contaminated soil?  And will
  there be any language to this in the water licence?
       And I think in summary, I guess, what we are --
  points we're trying to raise here is that we don't
  necessarily have any significant issues with their
  water licence application.  We do have concerns with
  possible migration of contaminants with the state of
  the cells as they were left at the end of the field
  season.  We want to review their final report.  We're
  expecting to see the results.  We want an opportunity
  to review their final report of the season, once it's
  available to the Water Board, and we would like to know
  who is responsible for treating contaminant soil that
  is encountered after during construction, and I just
  want to add, also is that our preference -- I know
  AANDC wants the water licence -- they are directing
  CanZinco to regrade the area so there is no water
  ponding.  From our point of view, we -- DND would
  prefer that CanZinco does not backfill the excavation
  because if they do, we will have to excavate it again.
  Because it's not suitable material for our
  infrastructure.  It won't be compacted, and it won't
  meet the grading requirements for our construction, and
  that's our presentation.  We're open for questions.
  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Any questions to DND from the
  public?
  Questions from Members of the Public
  LILY KIGUTAK:            My name is Lily.  I'm a
  resident.  I would like to know if the DND, the
  Department of National Defence, is going to go through
  the process of applying for a water licence for
  bringing up the dock as -- as part of the national
  defence?
  MR. LEMAY:               I'm Louis LeMay with Defence
  Construction Canada on behalf of DND.  I believe a
  water licence application is already with the Board
  with regards to the construction work.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            Was it presented to the
  residents of Arctic Bay?
  MR. LEMAY:               It is a different class.  I
  think it's a Class B application.  Our contractor is
  doing it on our behalf.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            Will there be a public
  meeting?
  MR. LEMAY:               I'm not sure.  It depends on
  the Board's decision on that.  I believe the documents
  are posted on their registry.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            As a resident, I would like to
  recommend to have a public meeting with the DND to
  present their plans for the future site for the
  Department of National Defence.  Thank you for
  giving -- letting me have this.
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay again for DCC.
  I'd like to speak to that.  As part of the project, we
  have a requirement from the contractor to conduct a
  public meeting in Arctic Bay to present their project,
  their approach, and all that.  It's not necessarily
  restricted to the water licence, but it's specific to
  the project, so there will be a public meeting in
  Arctic Bay conducted by the contractor with regards to
  our project.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            Okay.  Thank you.
  MR. LEMAY:               Separately.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Damien?
  MR. COTE:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Damien
  Cote with the Water Board.  The way the Water Board
  consults with the community often depends on the size
  and importance of a project.  The Board issues about 80
  licences per year.  It's very difficult for it to go to
  every single community every time there's a licence, so
  what it does, it goes to the big ones because those are
  the ones with the most impact.  The licence that is --
  that you raised as a question is for something that is
  much smaller, both in terms of waste or in terms of
  water or both.  Those are still public.  The documents
  are available publicly.  The public can participate,
  but for those smaller ones, it's likely not in person,
  but there is opportunities, and the Board runs a very
  open process, even for -- for those ones.  This one is
  what we call the Type A licence, so here we come in
  person because it's much larger.  We can do that for
  what is the Type B licence, the one that applies for --
  in this case, but it's less likely because the impacts
  are smaller.  But it's not closed doors.  It's always
  open doors, and there's always an opportunity to
  participate.
  LILY KIGUTAK:            I would like to know how
  you -- I don't know.  How -- there's going to be how
  many people up there at the site with the Department of
  National Defence once it's constructed?  How do you
  determine that there -- it's a smaller project or
  whatever?  I don't understand.  That's where my
  question is, you know.
  THE CHAIR:               Damien?
  MR. COTE:                Mr. Chair, thank you.  The
  smaller projects would be -- we work -- there's a law,
  and the law says this level is a big project.  This
  level is a smaller one.  In this case, for big, Type A,
  what we're talking about today, that's 300 metres cubed
  per day or more of water, so very large, and the
  equivalent when it comes to waste.  When it's below
  that then we're in Type B territory.
       In this case, we -- there's often -- when we have
  a mine sometimes they start with a Type B, when they do
  the exploration, but then, when they start production,
  it's a larger project, and then they're in a Type A,
  and then there's a public hearing.  So in this case,
  we're looking at a Type B.  If this were to become a
  very large facility with a lot of people on site, then
  you're likely in the Type A territory, and you're
  likely going to have a public hearing, likely in
  person.  That's for the Board to determine, but that's
  how it would happen and evolve.  Hopefully that helps
  clarify.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Anybody else?
       Tommy?
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.  I understand that
  you are talking about DND.  And it's very important for
  us -- and it's -- DND is a very important component of
  Canadian people for defence.  And what you are planning
  to do for Nanisivik and what you are inquiring to see
  the plan is going through, those are very important to
  us.  But what I want to see for the future is -- I know
  it's not going to be used.  There's -- there's lots of
  people that are starting to search for petroleum in
  Lancaster area and also other jurisdictions, but will
  the DND be taking part in -- in -- in taking --
  overseeing the active release of petroleum search and
  this will -- this will impact us.  This will -- this
  will impact us a lot, so I want to make sure that the
  DND who is involved with -- because you're going to be
  in -- looking after all the petroleum research -- oil
  search -- you know, oil companies that are doing
  studies in Lancaster area.
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay again with Defence
  Construction for DND.  I'm not sure I can answer this
  question.  DND doesn't look after private industry.
  The goal of the Nanisivik facility is to be a
  fuelling -- refuelling facility for the Arctic offshore
  patrol ships.  There's a point that they would be
  coming to refuel while they're doing patrols in the
  Arctic, and their main goal is for sovereignty
  exercises to patrol our waters.  In the future coming
  of the Northwest Passage becoming more -- becoming more
  of a prominent shipping lane internationally, there's a
  lot of pressure of getting -- using that shipping to
  cross merchandise from Europe to Asia.  It's a much
  shorter route than other routes, so the Government of
  Canada has initiated the Arctic offshore patrol ships
  to increase.  It's a completely new capability that the
  navy does not have right now.  It's new ships.  They're
  not replacing these ships.  This is a whole new fleet
  of ships with the purpose of patrolling our waters in
  the Arctic and on the west and east coast, and it's
  not -- we're not going to oversee any of the private
  operations.  Those are governed by other departments.
  I hope I answered the question.
  QAPIK ATTAGUTSIAK:       I am Qapik Attagutsiak from
  Arctic Bay.  Back then, when the mine was starting -- I
  started, from the beginning, my husband was involved
  from the beginning, but now I am still alive, and I --
  oh, I was involved with the beginning, and we lived
  close to the mine site, and when they were starting the
  exploration, active release, the creek was contaminated
  with these metals and other -- like unsafe chemicals
  and so on, so we still had to drink the creek, so
  although I drank that contaminated water, I'm still
  here, so I'm just saying that I survived the
  contamination, so although I agree with the plan, but
  my only concern is the -- our grandchildren, our young
  people.  Arctic Bay will be affected by alcohol or
  other drugs and substances, and I know -- I hope that,
  in the future, that it is going to be just a temporary
  work site.  Then, you know, there should be
  restrictions of the alcohol because in the Nanisivik
  mine, we recommended that there be no alcohol, but they
  never followed that, so alcohol, drugs -- my only
  concern is it will be introduced again, but -- so I
  agree; we need employment here and support the use and
  employment.  That's it, if you can understand.  That's
  it.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Next we have DFO to do a short presentation.
  Presentation by Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  Canada
  MR. BILL:                Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
  members of the Board, and Staff, the community of
  Arctic Bay, and the other participants.  I'd like to
  take this opportunity to apologize for my late arrival
  for the hearing, but I'm happy to be here today.
       My name is -- did I say my name is Kevin Bill?
  Probably.  And I represent Real Property Management
  with Fisheries and Ocean Canada.  Today I'll speak
  briefly on the overall DFO mandate and our mandate and
  its relevance to the licence renewal process, our
  participation in the earlier completeness and then the
  follow-up technical review, our previous submissions
  and comments, and our more recent review of the
  supplemental information provided by CanZinco.
       So DFO is a fairly large department with a lot of
  different operational sectors, but with respect to the
  licence application itself, there would be two that
  would be potentially relevant.  The first is the DFO
  Fisheries Protection Program formally known as habitat
  program.  They have participated in previous amendments
  and updates to the licence.  They've had no concerns in
  the most recent renewal and had no concerns with the
  current application with respect to the remediation and
  reclamation and potential impacts on fish and fish
  habitat.
       DFO Real Property Management, who I am
  representing, is the current administrator of this site
  on behalf of the Crown with DFO, and our primary
  interest is to ensure that the obligations outlined in
  the lease for the site are being met.
       So to the earlier part of the process, our initial
  comments during the completeness review focus primarily
  on Appendixes I and J of the application, which
  included information on the proposed amended remedial
  approach which was later withdrawn by the applicant.
  During the technica review, we provided some comments
  or had some questions about the sampling protocol and
  reporting.  At the time, we had recommended a shift for
  more composite sampling to discrete confirmatory
  sampling to support remediation as being completed and
  also requested a little more information in the
  remediation progress reports, following that and some
  additional information from the proponent, and I'll
  speak to it a little bit more to follow up on that.
       Resulting from the technical hearing and
  prehearing conference, DFO did have several commitments
  that we agreed to.  One was to provide information on a
  memorandum of agreement between DFO, DND, and CanZinco.
  At the time, it was going to be between the three
  parties.  In the end, DFO and CanZinco signed an
  updated memorandum of agreement to extend the use of
  the concrete pad, as was pointed out earlier, for the
  storage -- temporary storage of soil to help facilitate
  and allow the remediation to be completed and the DND
  naval facility to be constructed or to proceed
  concurrently, and as mentioned, DFO and DND were
  currently looking to finalize an MOU to transfer
  administration of the site to DND, and we also
  requested to provide additional information on the
  lease between the Crown and CanZinco.  The original
  lease was signed with Nanisivik Mines in 1978.  At the
  time, the site was administered by the Ministry of
  Transport on behalf of the Crown.  The lease is for
  30.36 acres.  Administration of the lease was
  transferred to Fisheries and Oceans in 1998.  The last
  signed lease expired on December 31st of 2003.  It was
  not renewed.  The lease includes the requirement to
  remove all structures returned to the site to the
  previous condition, and that requirement remains even
  with the exploration or cancellation of the lease, so
  we provided that additional information to the Board as
  requested.
       Finally our more recent review of the supplemental
  information provided the remediation confirmatory soil
  sampling methodology.  We had no concerns in general
  with the methodology.  It's consistent with some
  guidance that we received as a federal department under
  the federal contaminated sites action plan.  We also
  reviewed the methodology to develop site-specific
  remediation objectives.  We had no concerns with the
  proposed methodology and the final review of the
  updated abandonment and reclamation plan.  Also we had
  no significant concerns with the proposed plan.  We did
  ask for additional information on some liner that
  remains on site, and that information, I believe, was
  provided in the follow-up reports at the end of the
  season.  And that's all I have for today, but I'd be
  happy to answer any questions, if there are any.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions from the public?  (OTHER LANGUAGE
  SPOKEN)
  Questions from Members of the Public
  SAKIASIE QAUNAQ:         I'm Sakiasie Qaunaq.  I've
  lived here all my life.  The contamination sampling was
  soil sampling, okay.  The metal that was mined was
  naturally lead, so the creeks were already healed from
  the natural metals in the area, so I have lived here
  and worked here when I was young, and before the
  mining, we were staking the area, and we saw outcrops
  of natural metal, so naturally the water was already
  yellow, so it was discoloured, and we know that it was
  natural, so when they started mining, there were all
  kinds of minerals.  They crushed it to take out the --
  they added chemicals to break it down into manageable
  quantities where you go after the metals, so they mix
  it up, and they crush it and process, and then the
  tailings, whatever they have been used, they dump it to
  the tailings pond.  The natural metals was already
  occurring in the water, in the -- in the creek, so it
  would be a rusty colour on the ground, so the creek,
  coming from the -- there's some exposed metal you could
  see on the cliffs, and it's going down to the creek,
  and they were close to the ocean.  It's already going
  down to the ocean, same with Chris Creek.  It's already
  discoloured from the natural metals, but the -- the
  concern with that they use the chemicals to process the
  metals that they were mining, so the colouring is
  natural.  They could -- all the people, they know it's
  always been the yellow colour, but we don't know the
  content of that yellow water.  What's in that water?
  We don't know.
  MR. BILL:                I'm not sure if there was a
  question for DFO to answer there or not.  In terms of
  the water quality, I think it's a question to the
  proponent, but I think the comment was that it's been
  natural in the past.
  THE INTERPRETER:         He's nodding to acknowledge
  the statement.
  SAKIASIE QAUNAQ:         Yes.  It's just a statement
  saying that naturally the water turned yellow from the
  natural having of metal.  We cannot physically see the
  contamination without testing it.
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        I'm Tommy Tatatuapik from
  Arctic Bay.  Thank you, Chairman.  I think, in closing
  comments, I'm out of questions.  I just wanted to thank
  you and appreciate the Water Board for the opportunity
  to and DND and other people here that came to our
  community to support the community -- the residents to
  make sure that we live in a safe environment and for
  supporting the people from -- you're here to help on
  behalf of the people, so I'm greatly appreciative of
  your effort to help us.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  JULIA OLAYUK:            Myself, related to water
  lake -- or the lake with fish, the lake is
  contaminated.  Would you -- is it able to be cleaned so
  that you can drink it again?  Is there a way to clean
  contaminated water lake or with fish?
  MR. BILL:                Is that -- that's a question
  for DFO to answer, I guess.  I'm sure there would be
  ways to clean it if it was contaminated.  I think the
  applicant would be better to speak to the current state
  of the water, but there would be mechanisms to clean it
  if required or if necessarily, if it needed to, but
  that would not fall to be DFO's responsibility.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Anybody else from the floor?
       Thank you to the applicant, interveners, community
  members.  This concludes our community session for
  tonight, but we hope to have everybody back here
  tomorrow morning and have our closing remarks done
  tomorrow, and we hope to see you all here tomorrow
  morning at 9.  Thanks for your patience.
       We'll do a closing prayer.
  (CLOSING PRAYER)
  _______________________________________________________
  PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL 9:00 AM OCTOBER 9, 2014
  _______________________________________________________

  

  

  

  CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT:
  
       I, Toni Rizzoli, certify that the foregoing pages
  are a complete and accurate transcript of the
  proceedings, taken down by me in shorthand and
  transcribed from my shorthand notes to the best of my
  skill and ability.
       Dated at the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta,
  this 17th day of October 2014.

  
  ________________________________
       Toni Rizzoli, CSR(A)
      Official Court Reporter