NUNAVUT WATER BOARD

  
  
            Licence No. 1AR-NAN0914 Type A Licence
               Renewal/Amendment Application
  
  ___________________________________________________
                      PUBLIC HEARING
                         VOLUME 1
  ___________________________________________________

  
                    Arctic Bay, Nunavut
                      October 8, 2014

  

                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  October 8, 2014
  
  Opening by the Chair                              8
  
  Roll Call                                         18
  
  ARLENE LAUDRUM, Affirmed                          20
  JOHAN SKOGLUND, Affirmed
  CLAUDE LAVALLEE, Affirmed
  
  Presentation by Nyrstar Canada (Holdings)         21
  Limited
  
  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development       49
  Canada Questions Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              53
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Nyrstar       55
  Canada (Holdings) Limited

  
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  October 8, 2014
  
  Nunavut Review Board Questions Nyrstar Canada     58
  (Holdings) Limited
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Nyrstar       60
  Canada (Holdings) Limited
  
  KAREN COSTELLO, Affirmed                          68
  MURRAY BALL, Affirmed
  IAN PARSONS, Affirmed
  
  Presentation by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern   68
  Development Canada
  
  Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited Questions       75
  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              79
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Aboriginal    83
  Affairs and Northern Development Canada
  
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  October 8, 2014
  
  Nunavut Water Board Questions Aboriginal          85
  Affairs and Northern Development Canada
  
  LOUIS LEMAY, Affirmed                             86
  
  Presentation by Department of National Defence    86
  Canada
  
  Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited Responds        91
  Department of National Defence Canada
  
  Questions from Members of the Public              95
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Responds to Department  96
  of National Defence Canada
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Department    98
  of National Defence Canada

  
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  October 8, 2014
  
  Nunavut Water Board Questions Department of       102
  National Defence Canada
  
  Certificate of Transcription                      107

  

  

  

  

  

  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)
  
  DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA
  K. Bill                  Manager of Strategic Planning
                           and Investments
  _______________________________________________________

  

  

  

  
  (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 10:24 AM)
  THE CHAIR KABLOONA:      Good morning.  Welcome to
  Arctic Bay.  Before we start this hearing, I'd like to
  asked Tommy Tatatuapik to do the opening prayer,
  please.
  (OPENING PRAYER)
  Opening by the Chair
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Tommy.
       On behalf of the Nunavut Water Board, welcome to
  the community of Arctic Bay.  Now, to provide some
  background and set the stage for the hearing, the
  Nunavut Water Board, which I shall refer to as "the
  Board", is an institution of public government created
  under Article 13 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
  The Board is responsible for the use, management, and
  regulation of freshwater in the Nunavut Settlement
  Area.  The purpose of this hearing -- public hearing is
  to review an application filed by Nyrstar Canada
  (Holdings) Limited, whom I shall refer to as "Nyrstar"
  on behalf of CanZinco Mines Limited, whom I shall refer
  to as "CanZinco", for renewal and amendment of the Type
  A water licence in accordance with the Nunavut Waters
  and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.  Section to --
  pursuant to Section 13.3.6 of the Nunavut Land Claims
  Agreement and Section 29 of the Nunavut Waters and
  Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, the Board has
  delegated its power to dispose all matters relating to
  the renewal and amendment application for Type A
  Licence Number 1AR-NAN0914, and during the conduct of
  this public hearing to a Panel of the Board, which is
  referred to as "Panel P13".
       I will be chairing this Panel, and with me today
  are members of the Panel -- or 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 its technical review
  of the application are present, along with legal
  counsel for 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 Jardine LLP, legal counsel to the Board.  In
  addition, we have two interpreters that are available
  for simultaneous translation:  Ben Kogvik, secretary to
  the Board and Mishak Allurut from Arctic Bay.  For
  audio equipment, we have Norbert Portraits 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 Rizzoli 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
  any pending matters, either by confirming or denying
  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 any of the parties or the media.
       If you have any question about the Board, its
  practices or procedures, please speak with the
  executive director, and he will assist you.
       Prior to identifying and introducing all of the
  parties in attendance today, I will provide a brief
  summary of licences that have been issued to the
  project, as well as the current renewal/amendment
  application that is before the Board.
       Licences issued to the project:  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 Nunavut Water Board.
       The Nunavut Water Board has issued three licences
  and two amendments to the project.  Licence NWB1NAN9702
  was issued to Nanisivik Mines 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 a 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 NWB1NAN9702 was
  issued on December 9, 1999, to allow for changes in
  operational conditions.  Amendment Number 2 to Licence
  NWB1NAN9702 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, and post-closure monitoring activities at
  the former Nanisivik Mine site.  Renewal Licence
  1AR-NAN0914 was issued to CanZinco on April 1, 2009,
  and expired on 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 involves continued closure,
  reclamation, post-closure monitoring activities at the
  former Nanisivik Mine site.
       I'm going to move on to the application that is
  before the Board.  As mentioned earlier, the
  application that is currently before the Board is for
  the renewal/amendment of Type A Water Licence
  1AR-NAN0914, issued to CanZinco Limited, which later
  became known 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 generally as
  follows:  Five-year renewal of the licence to allow for
  continued water use and waste deposit for industrial
  undertaking; continued reclamation closure and
  post-closure monitoring activities at the former
  Nanisivik Mine site; proposed amendment to the
  geotechnical monitoring requirements under Part 1 or
  Schedule 2 of the licence; proposed amendment to the
  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 soil and
  water quality monitoring, establishment of nonhazardous
  waste landfill facility, conduct studies to develop
  site-specific soil remediation objectives for petroleum
  hydrocarbon-impacted soil, amend the remediation
  approach for hydrocarbon-contaminated soil.
       The application to amend and renew the water
  licence received on November 14th, 2014, included
  application cover letter; water licence amendment
  renewal application form; executive summary of water
  licence amendment application, English and Inuktitut;
  site location map; Nunavut Planning
  Commission conformity determination; the Nunavut Impact
  Review Board screening requirements; geotechnical
  monitoring schedule 2014 to 2018; water quality
  monitoring schedule 2014 to 2018; contaminated soil
  remediation progress; petroleum hydrocarbon
  contaminated soils risk-based remedial options
  analysis; concordance table related to supplemental
  information requirements for hydrocarbon-impacted soil
  storage and land-farm treatment facilities; site layout
  map; letter of credit; CanZinco appointment of officer;
  CanZinco certificate of amendment; compliance
  assessment and status report.
       The following documents were received subsequent
  to submission of the application in response to
  interveners' comments and information request:
  Attachment 3:  Waste management plan, dated April 2014;
  Attachment 4:  Spill contingency plan, dated March
  2014; whole review of methodology/approach involved in
  developing site-specific remediation objectives for
  predetermined project areas at the Nanisivik dock site
  dated September 4, 2014; remediation confirmation soil
  sampling methodology, dated September 5, 2014;
  abandonment and restoration plan for treatment of
  contaminated soil at the former Nanisivik Mine, dated
  September '14.  Copies of the submissions I just
  described, as well as other documents related to the
  application and files, are available at that the
  Board's FTP website.
       In addition, our licencing administrator, Robin
  Ikkutisluk, has made available, for public viewing of
  this hearing, paper copies of the documents that have
  been received to date for the applicant's file.  If you
  are interested in reviewing any of the documentation,
  please ask Robin.
       Now I'm going to provide you with a brief summary
  of the procedural history for the application that is
  before the Board.  November 14, 2013, the Board
  received from CanZinco a renewal/amendment application
  for Licence 1AR-NAN0914.
       On November 20, 2013, the Board acknowledged
  receipt of the application, as well as requested that
  the applicant provide confirmation of application and
  water-use fees.
       On December 3, 2014, the Board confirmed receipt
  of the application and water-use fees.
       On January 29, 2014, following the internal review
  of the application, the NWB distributed correspondence
  requesting that parties conduct their completeness
  check and initial technical assessment of the
  application, with the deadline for submissions set for
  March 3, 2014.
       On March 3, 2014, the Board received comments on
  completeness from AANDC, DFO, DND, and EC.  CanZinco
  also provided submission to the Board in response to
  the NWB January 29th, 2014, correspondence.
       On April 2, 2014, the Board issued correspondence
  requesting that the proponent respond to interveners'
  submissions on completeness and initial technical
  assessment of the application by April 15th, 2014.
       On April 10, 2014, CanZinco submitted its written
  request to the Board to amend the term of the licence
  to allow for commencement of on-site activities June
  2014, in advance of continuation of their
  renewal/amendment application process.
       On April 13th, 2014, CanZinco provided its
  response to the interveners' submissions on
  completeness and initial technical assess.
       On May 2, 2014, the Board distributed the
  application publicly for a 30-day technical review
  period with a deadline for submission set for June 2,
  2014.
       On or before June 4, 2014, submissions were
  received from the following intervening parties:
  AANDC, DFO, DND, and EC.
       On July 17th, 2014, the Board issued a TM/PHC
  update that included a list of confirmed participants
  and agenda.
       June 18, 2014, the technical meeting and
  prehearing conference was held by way of teleconference
  for the application.
       June 27, 2014, the Board distributed the draft
  list of commitments generated during the public hearing
  for public comments.
       On June 30, 2014, the Board received comments and
  feedback on the draft commitment list from CanZinco,
  DFO, and DND.
       July 7, 2014, the Board issued the prehearing
  conference decision report for the project.
       On August 29th, 2014, CanZinco provided
  correspondence to the Board, indicating that
  submissions of its updated abandonment and restoration
  plan would be delayed.  The Board distributed the
  proponent's correspondence to the public on the same
  day.
       On September 9th, 2014, the Board issued
  correspondence indicating that their licencee provided
  submissions in response to commitments generated during
  the technical meeting and prehearing conversation.  The
  Board stated in its correspondence that the deadline
  for final interveners' submissions for the public
  hearing was changed from September 10th, 2014, to
  September 17th, 2014.
       September 15th, 2014, the Board received, from the
  applicant, a copy of the updated abandonment and
  restoration plan for treatment of contaminated soil at
  the Nanisivik Mine, which the Board submitted publicly
  for comments on September 16, 2014.
       On September 17th, 2014, the Board received final
  intervener submissions from AANDC, DFO, DND, EC,
  although the date, for some reason, had been changed to
  September 17, 2014.
       Based on the application, written submissions
  received, information exchanged occurring prior and
  subsequent to a technical hearing and prehearing
  conversation, the Board Staff listed the following as
  issues, not in a 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 changes to geotechincal and water quality
  monitoring requirements, methodology for sampling and
  testing petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil,
  proposed financial security requirements for the
  project, timeline or schedule for completeness of soil
  remediation and the project, environmental progress
  report for the 2014 period.
       Written submissions for this have been received
  from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
  Canada, on August 27th, 2014; Department of Fisheries
  and Oceans Canada; Department of National Defence;
  Environment Canada, and if I'm missing anybody, please
  let me know.
       If there are no concerns, I would like to move
  forward to our roll call.  I will begin with the
  applicant, CanZinco.  Please introduce yourself.
  Roll Call
  MR. SKOGLUND:            My name is Johan Skoglund from
  CanZinco.
  MS. LAUDRUM:             Arlene Laudrum with SRK
  Consulting, representing CanZinco.
  MR. LAVALLEE:            I'm Claude Lavallee working
  for Nyrstar CanZinco.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       AANDC?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Karen
  Costello with Aboriginal Affairs.
  MR. BALL:                Murray Ball with Aboriginal
  Affairs.
  MR. PARSONS:             Ian Parsons, Aboriginal
  Affairs.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       DFO?
  MR. COTE:                Mr. Chair, for your
  information and for the benefit of people here, we are
  expecting a representative for DFO who will arrive at
  some point today.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       DND?
  MR. LEMAY:               My name is Louis LeMay.  I'm
  with Defence Construction Canada on behalf of DND at
  the hearing.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       If there are other interveners not mentioned who
  were not mentioned who would like to speak, please
  identify yourself.
       It is our tradition to give respect to our elders,
  therefore, at any time during the proceedings, an elder
  may speak to the application that is before the Board.
  Are there any members of the general public who would
  like to identify themselves?  Are there any
  representatives from agencies, associations, et cetera
  who have not submitted interventions but would like to
  speak?
       Before proceeding with the hearing, I would like
  to request that all parties, if you haven't done so
  already, register and sign in with Robin Ikkutisluk,
  the Board's licencing administrator at the side table
  located at the entrance.
       I would now like to proceed with the
  identification of any motions or objections to the
  application that is before the Board.
       We will now proceed with Item 8 of the agenda,
  presentation by the applicant.
       Mr. Skoglund, how much time will you or your
  representatives require?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            I would estimate half an hour
  for the presentation.
  THE CHAIR:               Craig, will you swear them in.
  ARLENE LAUDRUM, Affirmed
  JOHAN SKOGLUND, Affirmed
  CLAUDE LAVALLEE, Affirmed
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Please go ahead
  with your presentation.
  Presentation by Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
  thank you for everyone who's attending the meeting
  today.  Thanks to the Board for giving us the
  opportunity to come and talk to you about our
  application.  I've put together a presentation, which
  we have here, and I guess I can drive.
       So what I wanted to talk to you -- actually, I'll
  start with a bit of an introduction so -- because I
  haven't met everyone here before.  So my name is Johan
  Skoglund.  I work for a company called Nyrstar, which
  is a mining and metals company.  I'll give you a short
  introduction to the company shortly, and I am head of
  environment for -- for the company, for Nyrstar.  And
  in that capacity, I manage the portfolio of legacy
  sites or closed sites of which Nanisivik is one of the
  most significant sites.  I've been involved with
  Nanisivik and the closure activities since the
  beginning of 2012, so I've seen through the work that's
  been done in 2012, 2013, and 2014 and, obviously, also
  been heavily involved and driving this application
  process from -- from our end.  So what I wanted to talk
  to you briefly about today, I wanted to give you a
  short introduction to our company and who we are, what
  we do, and what our values are, a short sort of summary
  of the site -- and many of you have more history on
  this site than what I have, but I think it's just
  useful to take a quick look at the history, and then
  after that, we'll get into the bulk of the
  presentation, which is about the application that's in
  front of the board, in terms of an introduction, and
  then the key components of the application, which are
  to do with continued water quality monitoring,
  continued geotechincal monitoring, continued and
  finalization of soil remediation at the dock site, and
  then a new component is a small landfill for
  nonhazardous waste.
       So in terms of an introduction to Nyrstar, I will
  do this fairly briefly, but if anyone has comments or
  questions, feel free to ask me later on or whenever.
  But we are an integrated mining and metals business.
  We are one of the biggest producers in the world today
  of refined zinc.  We produce about 1.1 million tons of
  zinc, refined, pure zinc pure year.  We also have some
  fairly decent positions in lead, as well as some other
  base in precious metals.
       We operate nine mines, all in the Americas from
  Canada down to southern Chile, and our smelting
  business includes five zinc smelters and one -- one
  lead smelter, and we employ about six-and-a-half
  thousand people across the world, with our head office
  in Switzerland, which is where I'm based.
       In terms of what we produce, as I said, it's very
  much a zinc story in line with what we used to produce
  here at Nanisivik, so we produce zinc concentrate from
  our mines, and we produce commodity-grade refined zinc
  from our smelters; same with lead.  We have one lead
  smelter, as I said, lead concentrate for our mines, and
  then a number of other diversified products and
  minor -- and minor elements and minor metals and
  precious metals.
       There we go.  So I included this slide because
  people quite often ask me, So what's zinc used for, and
  the basic question is that most of the zinc that's
  produced goes into construction or to transport, and a
  lot of that is -- is, you know, for galvanization
  purposes, you know, for rust production.  So -- so
  providing rust protection of steel.  That's the main
  use of zinc.  Dye -- in varies casting applications are
  quite big as well, so many of the -- the appliances you
  have at home and things like handles on the car and
  things of that nature would be produced from zinc, but
  then there's other minor uses as well.  For example,
  the use that's becoming bigger and bigger is the use of
  zinc in fertilizers.
       It's recognized that zinc deficiency is one of the
  leading causes among kids and adults in third-world
  countries, so there's a lot of work done at the moment
  with the industry together with the World Health
  Organization to introduce zinc into fertilizers to make
  sure that the soils are not deficient in zinc and that
  people that eat, you know, the crops get enough zinc in
  their diet, so it's something that's very much helping
  people's health, but it's also becoming a significant
  market for the zinc industry.
       "Our People", it's an important slide for me.  As
  I said, we have about six-and-a-half thousand people
  across -- across the world, and what really glues these
  or binds these people together is something we refer to
  as "the Nyrstar way", which is really establishing
  the -- the behaviourial framework that we expect
  from -- from all the people that work for Nyrstar, and
  I think of relevance for the discussions today are the
  principles around preventing harm, preventing harm to
  the environment and our people, to be open and honest,
  you know, engage truthfully and ethically with our
  stakeholders, and keeping our word.  So if we say that
  we will do something, we will do it, and that means,
  also, obviously, following the law.  So it's an
  important piece of our company, and it's something we
  expect from all the people that work within Nyrstar.
       This is very dear to me given my role, so I can
  talk about this for the rest of the day, but just to
  say that we are very committed to responsible,
  containable business practices and operating into
  partnerships with our stakeholders.  We believe that
  this is actually something that's a prerequisite for
  our success.  It's not an extra or something we add on.
  It's part of our core business, and it's something we
  need to do to be successful.  We -- I won't go through
  this, but we have, you know, policies, standards, and
  procedures for how we operate.
       All our sites must have environmental management
  systems.  We audit our sites regularly for regulatory
  compliance and for the way they work with the
  environment, and we publish on an annual basis a
  sustainability report where we talk about the work we
  do around environment, social issues, health and
  safety, things of that nature.  A lot of this is on our
  website, if anyone is interested.
       So with that introduction to our company, I'll
  just talk very quickly about the site history, so as
  most -- most of you, I think, know, the company or the
  mine operated between 1976 and 2002, produced a lead
  concentrate and zinc concentrate.  It was the first
  mine in Canada north of the Arctic Circle, and the key
  facilities and infrastructure that existed at the site
  was -- was the underground mine, which had a main
  portal and a number of other smaller openings.  There
  were, I believe, three open cuts, fairly small.
  There's a concentrator to produce the concentrate out
  of the ore, the town site, obviously the dock site that
  we'll talk more about at the bay.  The concentrates
  were obviously shipped out in the summer months, and
  there was a concentrate storage shed.  Importantly, for
  environment, tailings were disposed at the West Twin
  Disposal Area, and from there, effluent was discharged
  into the Twin Lakes Creek.
       The mine stopped operating in 2002, and between
  2002 and 2008, most of the closure work happened.  I
  would say, 2004 and '5 were probably the bulk -- the
  bulk of the work that closed the site.
       We came into the picture in 2011 when we bought
  the company named Breakwater, which was the previous --
  a Canadian company.  That was the previous operator.
  So when we bought Breakwater, we also took over
  ownership of their operating mines, but also their
  legacy sites, including -- including Nanisivik, and
  just to avoid confusion, you'll see reference to
  "CanZinco".  For all intents and purposes, CanZinco is
  more or less the same.  You can think of it as the same
  as Nyrstar.  In a legal structure, CanZinco is a
  subsidiary of Breakwater Resources, and Breakwater
  Resources is a subsidiary of Nyrstar.
       I just included this picture because, I think, for
  me, it's quite interesting to think about, you know --
  before we get into all the details of the
  application -- all the work that actually has been done
  up to date, so there was a significant effort that went
  into closing the wider mine site, so the circles show
  all the different areas where there was rehabilitation
  and closure work undertaken, so -- so you know,
  importantly that includes the tailings facility, but
  also we have up here different mining areas:
  Oceanview, which had an open pit and underground mine;
  K Baseline, which is an underground mine; Area 14; the
  east open-pit area; the main portal, I think, was
  around here; and there was also an open pit here, sort
  of this area; the industrial site, the town site.
  There is a landfill over here, so all of those areas
  have been closed, and actually, there was also a lot of
  work done at the dock site, 2004 and '5, at the time of
  the major closure, so I think, when we think about this
  application, and there's been a lot of talk about the
  dock site, I think it's also wise to sort of pause and
  think about what has been done and the success of the
  work that has been done to date.  I'm certainly very,
  very pleased with how the closure of the major
  components, such as the tailing facility, has gone and
  the monitoring results of what we received is very much
  demonstrating that.
       So with that short introduction, I will get into
  the application, and by way of introduction, we
  obviously have an existing water licence now that we
  have operated under since 2009.  That authorizes us to
  do principally three things, to do monitoring --
  post-closure monitoring of water quality; second piece
  is post-closure monitoring of, you know, technical --
  geotechincal work, earthworks, engineered structures,
  things of that nature.  It also authorizes us to do
  remediation of the petroleum and hydrocarbon-impacted
  soil at the dock site.  And you think it's quite
  important to recognize that the application that's
  currently in front of the Board, in terms of those
  principal components, the application is very similar
  to what we have done been doing the last three years.
  We have making some small tweaks to monitoring
  schedules and such, but by and large, in terms of the
  overall undertaking, it remains very much similar to
  what was approved in 2009.
       An important component is that we are seeking no
  changes when it relates to water uses.  Actually, uses
  of water is a very, very small component of what we do.
  If we look back in the previous five-year period, there
  were no water uses in 2009, '10, '11, '12, and '13.
  The only year that we used water was in 2013 when we
  used about 20 cubic metres, so water usage is a very,
  very small component of what we do and ask for.  We are
  making and asking for some minor modifications for the
  monitoring programs for water and geotechincal, and
  we'll get into those proposed changes in a minute.
       Should we pause?  Or should we go on?
  MR. COTE:                Damien Cote, apologies.  We --
  we were looking for amplification.  I think we've
  resolved that issue.  Feel free to carry on, Mr. Chair,
  if that's okay.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Thanks, Damien.
       Yeah.  So in terms of the contaminated soil at the
  dock, sort of the principal approach to remediating
  that soil and to handling that issue remains the same
  in the current -- in the -- in the licence that we're
  applying for relative to the existing licence.
  Something that is new is that we're asking for
  permission to -- to construct a small landfill for
  disposal of nonhazardous waste.  Things like rebars and
  wires and liners and other inert materials that have
  accumulated on site during the course of the
  remediation and monitoring activities, and we feel
  that -- the term of the new licence, we feel it's -- a
  five-year period is appropriate, similar to what we --
  or identical to what we have in the -- in the current
  licence, so that's by way of introduction.
       So I'll then go into -- and sort of the key
  components here that we're talking about.  So if we
  start with water, we have been doing monitoring for
  water qualify for a long time, obviously, when the mine
  operated, during closure, and now post closure, and the
  work is generally focused on these two principal
  watersheds at the site, so sort of this area here,
  which is referred to as the Twin Lakes watershed, so
  that captures sort of Twin Lakes Creeks flows here from
  Twin Lakes, down here, through to sort of centre area
  of the site, and then discharges down by the dock, so
  that captures runoff from the tailings facility, from
  the west open pit, from the old industrial site, the
  town site, the landfill -- partly the landfill, and
  also anything that happens down at the dock site.  At
  the moment, we have six monitoring locations in that
  watershed.
       The other watershed that we monitor is Chris Creek
  watershed, so this is Chris Creek here.  So that will
  capture runoff from Area 14, the K Baseline Area,
  Oceanview, the east open-pit area, and at the moment,
  we have three monitoring locations in that watershed.
  So that's -- that's what we're doing at the moment, and
  at the moment, we're held to a set of regulatory
  compliance limits established by the Board, and they
  apply in the monitoring location somewhere around here,
  which is referred to as 159-4, so that's a compliance
  station.
       In the other monitoring locations, we have
  developed what's referred to as action values, so
  there's statistical values.  They have looked at, you
  know, what contamination pollutant levels have been
  seen in prior-year monitoring programs, and then they
  have taken the 95th percentile of those values and
  established that, for each parameter, as an action
  level.  And on the significance of that is, if we
  exceed those action levels, we need to do an
  investigation.  We need to understand, you know, what's
  happening.  So that's an introduction to what we are
  doing right now.
       And in terms of the results that have been
  achieved under the existing permit, first and foremost,
  we have stayed compliant with all the limits of 159
  that apply to 159-4 at the outflow from the former
  tailing facility.  Actually, we've remained
  significantly below the limits.  In many cases, we are
  near detection -- detection limit for many parameters.
  Zinc being a key parameter, we usually hover around .2,
  relative to a licence limit of .5, so quite
  comfortable -- comfortably within the limits.  The
  picture is showing the location where Claude has taken
  the samples at 159-4.
       So in general, very happy with how the monitoring
  has gone for water and has, to me, confirmed that the
  implemented closure measures are having the desired
  effect.
       So in terms of the licence application, what we're
  asking for, you know, taking into account the positive
  and encouraging results today, we're asking for some
  small modifications to the monitoring program, so the
  first one we're asking that we haven't seen any
  petroleum hydrocarbons in any of the monitoring data,
  and therefore, we feel it's defendable to stop
  monitoring on a regular basis for petroleum
  hydrocarbons, with the exception of the -- of the
  station that's down at the dock site.  Given the work
  that's been done at the dock site, you know, handling
  petroleum contaminated soil, it's prudent, we believe,
  to continue to monitor that station for hydrocarbons,
  and obviously, I think we should continue to keep this
  provision in the licence that says, if we see sheen on
  the water, then that should give reason to take a
  sample and analyze for petroleum hydrocarbons.
       The other change that we're proposing is -- is to
  remove the test group that's referred to as NAN-4,
  which is a trace element scan, so it's really doing a
  scan of a lot of different parameters.  We have been
  doing that for many years now, and we haven't seen
  anything untoward or anything unusual or anything
  unexpected; therefore, we believe it's defendable to --
  to stop doing those analysis.  Important to point out,
  though, that, you know, the key metals that are
  included in that trace scan will be continue to be
  monitored or analyzed for -- in another -- the NAN-1
  test group, so that is -- that is cadmium, lead, and
  zinc, which we obviously need to continue to test for.
       In terms of the -- in terms of the compliance
  point station at 159-4, we think it would be wise to --
  to align the regulatory parameters with the parameters
  that we are asked to monitor for.  At the moment, we
  have, you know, a set of limits, for example, for
  arsenic and radium and others, that we are not required
  to monitor for and also that are not particularly
  relevant, given the local geology and the previous
  operations, so we've asked that the reduced -- that the
  list of regulated parameters be reduced to cadmium,
  lead, zinc, TSS, and pH, which are really the key
  parameters that are relevant for this site, and then
  we've also asked to reduce the number of monitoring
  stations, so 159-10, which is the first one, is in the
  Twin Lakes Creek watershed.  It's right below a -- the
  reason that it has been there is that it's right below
  the main portal, and it's right by a natural outcrop of
  a sulfide ore, so that -- that was the reason why it
  was established in the first place.  At this point in
  time, we're not operating the mine anymore.  Also the
  results in this location have been -- have been good
  all the way along, so we don't see a need to continue
  to monitor this station.
       Similarly 159-15 and 159-17.  They are in the
  Chris Creek watershed.  If you look, there's various
  reasons outlined in our documentation for why we don't
  think they're -- they're necessary.  Fundamentally, it
  comes down to the fact that we've received very good
  results.  The results we are seeing in the Chris Creek
  watershed in general are actually comparable, and in
  some cases, lower than what existed before the mine was
  developed.  So we're very much back to a baseline type
  condition, and therefore, we think we can reduce --
  defendable to reduce the number of monitoring points in
  that -- in that watershed.  And then, you know,
  considering the overall success of the monitoring
  program so far, we believe we can reduce -- so we
  propose to reduce the monitoring frequency from every
  second week to once per month.
       Geotechincal monitoring, it's, in many ways, a
  similar story to water, obviously the two components
  are -- are very closely related, so when we talk about
  geotechincal monitoring, a lot of the focus goes into
  monitoring the performance of the covers that we put
  across different areas.  So there are covers,
  obviously, across the tailings facility.  There's
  covers -- geothermal covers on top of the old open
  pits.  There's covers on the town site, industrial
  site, and the landfill.  Really the purpose of these
  covers and what we're trying to achieve through this
  closure concept is that we want to make sure that we
  get freeze back of the waste material.  We want to
  promote the freeze front to, you know, go deeper and
  deeper into the waste material to really keep the waste
  in a permanently frozen state, and we also want to make
  sure that the active thaw that happens during the --
  during the summer season that would confine that thaw
  layer to the cover so it doesn't go down into the
  tailings or whatever waste material that it may be, but
  just stay in the cover that we've placed on top, so
  that's -- a lot of that is what we do in the
  geotechincal monitoring program, so we have a number of
  instruments all over the site that allows us to see
  what -- what happens, you know, inside these various
  closed areas.
       Claude is a big part of that in collecting that
  data and sending it to our external engineer for
  analysis.  In addition to that, obviously, the water
  licence requires us to do, every year, an inspection by
  the same external engineer, so he usually comes here
  in -- in July, spends a week, walks around across the
  entire site and looks at, you know, what is happening
  out there with our various geotechincal structures.
       So with that sort of introduction, in terms of the
  results that we have seen and leading up to today,
  similar to water, have been very, very promising.  We
  really believe that the closure concepts that have been
  applied and the closure works that have been
  implemented were successful, and the work we have been
  doing really is performing the way it was intended, you
  know, the way it was designed to performed.
       In particular, as I indicated -- you know, sort of
  alluded to before, the data that we have do suggest
  that this active thaw layer is confined to the covers.
  You know, it goes down a little bit in the summer, but
  it stays within the cover, and the underlying waste --
  I -- I have more data in the appendixes.  We can spend
  more time on it, if you want, but if you look at the
  data, you'll see, year by year, the freeze front or
  sort of the depth of the permanently frozen materials
  keeps sort of progressing deeper and deeper year by
  year, and it's actually really been picking up in the
  last two years.  We've seen accelerated cooling in the
  tailings and the other waste materials in the last
  couple of years.
       So sort of reflecting on -- on what's happened
  then over the last few years and the success, we are
  proposing a few mine modifications to the geotechnical
  monitoring program.  We obviously recognize that this
  is something we have to continue.  It's very important,
  so we -- we continue with the monitoring program.  We
  will continue to do the annual inspections by the
  external engineer, but we're proposing some minor
  tweaks.  One is that we don't think it's necessary to
  do the quarterly inspections that we have been doing.
       In the previous licence, we had to go out during
  the winter season, as well.  The data that gave us
  didn't actually tell us too much about the performance
  of the site, so we're suggesting that they be
  discontinued.  For me it's actually a safety issue too,
  to have Claude go out on his own in the middle of the
  winter is a safety concern for me.
       In terms of the instruments, we have an instrument
  that's referred to as a thermocouple.  The
  thermocouples that we have, they're about -- so what
  they allow us to do, they allow us to monitor the
  temperature of the subsurface strata inside the
  tailings facility.  Those instruments have been in
  place for up to 20 years.  They're not -- they're
  behaving erratically.  They're not functioning, and we,
  essentially, do not believe they're needed.  The data
  we need is provided to us from other instruments, and
  so we believe it's defendable to stop monitoring
  these -- these pieces of equipment, especially since
  they're not functioning.
       Similarly, with the groundwater monitoring wells
  that we have in the tailings facility, those are also
  not working.  They've been in place for a long time,
  and we're not -- we're not able to take samples from
  them.  The reason why we think it's not necessary to
  continue is that it's what I talked to you about
  before, to get the water quality that we are getting in
  the effluent, and also, you know, we believe, based on
  the other data that we have, that portable water that's
  sitting in the tailings facilities is actually
  hydraulically confined, so the water is pushing further
  and further down, and that water that's sitting there
  is really confined, so it's not -- it's not really
  going anywhere, so at this point in time, if things
  change, God forbid, in the future, we may have to
  rethink, but at this point in time, we don't think it's
  necessary to monitor quality of that water.  So that's
  the story on the geotechincal piece.
       In terms of contaminated soil at the dock site,
  I'll start by just -- just giving you a bit of a sense
  for the work that has been done under the existing
  licence and sort of take you up to where we stand
  today, and then we'll talk about what we've proposed
  under the renewed licence.  The picture at the top is
  showing the tank from -- as it existed in 2007, which I
  think was quite similar to the start of the licencing
  period, so the first thing that was done was to
  decommission those tanks, and that was done in 2011.
  The tanks were taken down and -- and shipped off site.
  The scrap was shipped off site.  In 2011, we also did a
  lot of work in terms of trying to understand the
  nature -- the extent of the contaminated soil that we
  were dealing with.  There were some very rough
  assumptions made at the start of the work about this
  quantity of soil that we needed to treat, but it wasn't
  until we actually had a chance to get in there and do a
  proper delineation study that we got a good sense for
  the quantities, and after that study, we understood it
  was about 17,000 cubic metres of soil that required
  treatment.  So in addition, 2011 and going into 2012,
  we -- we constructed the facilities that we use for
  treatment of the soil, and I'll show you some pictures
  of what they looked like shortly.  And then in 2011, we
  also started some excavation work, and particularly, we
  removed most of the liners that were sitting beneath
  the tanks.
       So I just wanted to give you a sense for how this
  work is done, what we have been doing, so essentially,
  the -- the picture to the -- to the upper left is
  showing the treatment facilities that we -- that we use
  for the contaminated soil, so the soil is excavated,
  and then it's placed in these lined areas, so they're
  about 30 times 10 metres big.  They're lined with HDP,
  and we placed in the soil in rows about 1-and-a-half
  metre high, and we have I think -- what do we have -- I
  think 16 of these cells all together, so excavators all
  put them there, and then when we put them there, we
  also mixed in some nutrients, and the idea here is
  that, you know, the contaminants are being treated
  through bio -- bioremediation, whether -- you know,
  through biological process, whereby -- whereby, you
  know, bugs and other creatures living in the soil
  actually, you know, contribute to reduce concentrations
  of hydrocarbons over time.  We see actually -- we
  actually also see volatilization playing a big piece,
  just by picking up the soil and dropping it.  As you
  see at the bottom, a lot of the contaminants are
  getting volatilized, volatilized and disappear into the
  air.
       So in 2012, '13, '14, spent a lot of effort doing
  this type of work, but it's really leading us up to
  today, so this picture was taken on -- in mid July, so
  it's not -- it's not entirely current, but quite
  recent, and so at this point in time, we have about
  6,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil left.  The soil
  is located in three principal areas.  So this up here
  is referred to as the upper treatment area.  We have
  ten -- ten of these cells that I just showed you
  sitting up here with soil.  This area here is referred
  to as "the lower treatment area".  There's an
  additional six cells there with contaminated soil, and
  then through an agreement with the DFO, we're also
  allowed to use the old concrete pad which used to house
  the shed for concentrated storage when the mine
  operated.  We're also allowed to use part of this pad
  for temporary stockpiling of soil.  We're actually
  now also -- we have some soil in this area too, so it
  extends out there.  So all together, in those three
  areas, there's about 6,000 cubic metres of soil.
  Excavation is essentially complete, so what's left is,
  essentially, what's sitting in these three areas.  We
  did not, when we did the final round of information
  samples, at the end of the year, that there was a small
  lens in what's referred to as Area 1, so we believe
  it's about 50 cubic metres still sitting there, so we
  will go in there at the start of the next season, and
  the first thing we will do is go out and take out those
  50 cubic metres.  After that, excavations should be --
  should be -- should be finished.
       There was a question raised recently, I believe,
  from the DND about a berm, which is not shown on this
  picture, but it's somewhere over here, if I am not
  mistaken, which was associated with the old tank farm,
  and there was a question raised about, What are we
  going to do with this berm and whether the material in
  the berm was clean?  And our response was that the berm
  had been sampled in the past, and we will provide the
  results.  Actually, going back and looking at this
  again, we were not able to find laboratory
  documentation for the complete length of the berm.  We
  do believe it's been sampled.  We're pretty sure it's
  been sampled, but we couldn't find all the results, so
  there is a stretch or a portion of this berm, about 25
  metres, which we don't have analytical results for, so
  the first thing we will do in 2015 is to go back in and
  sample that portion of the berm to confirm it's clean.
  We're pretty confident that it is clean, but we
  obviously need the laboratory data to demonstrate that
  that's the case.
       As more piece (sic) to be done next year, as well,
  is to remove a piece of liner that still remains on
  site.
       So in terms of -- in terms of the licence
  application, what -- what we're asking for, we're
  really just asking to continue to do what we're doing.
  You know, adopting the same approach to -- to
  remediation of the petroleum contaminated soil, as we
  have already been approved to do in our existing
  licence.  We believe it's been effective, and we would
  like to continue the same way.  We have filed --
  prepared and filed an updated abandonment and
  reclamation plan for this work as part of the
  application process, and that also includes an updated
  schedule.  If we continue the way we have been and the
  way things have been going in the last couple of years,
  we believe this work will finish at the end of the 2016
  season.  That also includes the decommissioning of
  the -- of the treatment facilities.
       Confirmatory soil sampling:  There has also been
  questions asked about this, and as you know, we have
  filed a memo about this with the Board as part of the
  application process.
       One thing that's new and that we would like to
  propose is -- and this is -- the Board is just aware of
  is we've expressed our intention to develop a
  site-specific remedial objective for the key
  contaminant of concern, and the key contaminant
  of concern is the diesel fraction of the hydrocarbons,
  so the majority of the contamination comes from diesel,
  and we measured that through the F2 carbon fraction.  I
  personally believe that this is the right thing to do.
  I think the science is there.  We should take advantage
  of the science, making sure, first and foremost, that
  what we do protects the environment, but doing it in a
  way that's actually resource efficient.  You know,
  that -- efficient in the terms of the time that's
  required for remediation and efficient in terms of the
  money that's needed to do the remediation.  So -- and
  there's a lot of, I think, good common sense in doing
  this work, so the situation as of today is that we are
  using a remediation -- set of remediation objectives
  that are directly adopted from the Canada-wide
  standards, so -- which means that they're
  generic values that have been developed for application
  all across Canada, any type of environment, any type of
  soil, any type of setting, basically.  That's what
  we're using at the moment.  When they developed those
  Canada-wide standards, they obviously had to make some
  assumptions, and -- and the way they did it is that
  they took, actually, two types of soils, one
  artificially created and one other soil; they spiked it
  with a sweet crude oil, fractionated sweet crude oil;
  and they -- they selected a number of soil
  invertebrates and plants, and then they looked at, you
  know, how are these plants and species responding in
  these soils?  And that's all very good, but you know,
  that data and that response -- that sort of response
  situation might not actually be relevant for -- for
  Nanisivik.  To the extent that our soils here are
  different from those used in developing the generic
  guidelines, to the extent that we actually have
  different plants and animals living at the dock site
  and to the extent that our contaminant is different --
  have different -- different toxicity profile, those
  generic guidelines might actually provide a relevant
  objective for -- for what we are doing.  So we believe
  it's, you know, applying the science that's available
  to us.  We believe we can produce a more accurate and
  relevant remediation objective for the site, and we
  have commands that work and -- and as part of the
  licencing process, we filed a memo describing the
  details of how we go about this.  Sort of the
  high-level -- the high-level summary of that work is
  that what we are doing, the methodology we're applying,
  is the same methodology that the scientists use when
  they developed the Canada-wide standards, so they've
  already defined a methodology.  All we're doing is to
  take that methodology and apply it to the specific
  contaminants and conditions that exist at Nanisivik, so
  take in the existing methodology but applying it to the
  plant species, to the types of soil, and the type of
  contaminant that we have at Nanisivik.  So that's what
  we're doing, and this work is sort of halfways through.
  We have collected the data.  We have analyzed the data.
  We're now in the face of understanding what the data is
  telling us and interpreting it and calculating, you
  know, a proposed new remediation objective.  We
  understand, at least from preliminary feedback from the
  Board, that doing this work would not constitute a
  licencing amendment, but I'll leave that to the Board
  to ponder.
       There was a question raised by AANDC regarding
  residual contamination, bioaccumulation.  I have a lot
  of technical details from the expert that we used.  The
  expert that we used for this work was actually the
  principal technical developer for the Canada-wide
  standard, so he has a long history of this, and he's
  provided -- and I'm happy to go through it, but the
  high-level -- the sort of the high-level conclusion in
  terms of bioaccumulation and contamination is that the
  CCME bioquality guidelines that we're applying at the
  moment and the CCME -- you know, the site-specific
  guidelines that we will generate through the process
  that we're going through now are designed to provide
  assurance that the ecological function, you know, will
  be sustained given the land use that's been selected;
  in our case, commercial land use, so the process we are
  going through is ensuring that, you know, there will
  not be not be untowards uptake of contaminants in the
  plants.  It's ensuring that the animals that live in
  the area will not be able to bioaccumulate the
  contaminants that we have, so it is really -- I mean,
  it's part and parcel and built into the process that we
  are -- that we are following.  And it's important, I
  think, to point out that that's the same, whether you
  apply the Canada-wide standards or if you provide a
  site-specific -- or if you use a site-specific
  guideline.  The process -- if you follow the process
  and do it correctly, you will be assured that there
  will be no untowards residual contamination or
  bioaccumulation.  I'm happy to provide more details on
  this either now or in writing later on, but that's sort
  of the high-level answer to that question.
       Finally, the landfill, so we are asking to
  construct a very -- a very small landfill for
  nonhazardous waste.  It's really to do with material
  that we've picked up around the site as we've been
  doing our monitoring work and remediation work, and
  it's largely to do with things like rebars, metal
  sheets that we can't use for anything else, scrap
  steel, the liners down from the dock site, so all sorts
  of inert nonhazardous waste.  We believe the total
  quantity that we need to dispose of is around 50 cubic
  metres, and we have -- we have selected a site which is
  located at the yard of the former warehouse, which is
  about -- it's sort of right across the street from --
  right across the road from the prior industrial site,
  and it has -- already -- has a concrete slab already
  that we can place the waste on.
  MS. LAUDRUM:             No concrete slab.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Sorry.  I take that back.  It
  has a rock foundation, but no concrete slab.
       So that's where we propose to put the waste, and
  we will then cover it by soil, and finally, with the
  geomembrane liners that we do get from down -- from the
  dock site, and then over that, when we close, we'll put
  a layer of soil on top of it, primarily just to prevent
  animals to (sic) access it.
       We will mon -- obviously, once this is finished
  and all closed, we'll continue to monitor it as part of
  the geotechincal inspections that we just discussed,
  you know, so we believe this is relatively
  straightforward.
       In terms of the land-use permits and requirements
  for this, we -- this is on Commissioner's land.  We
  have made several attempts to contact the lands
  administration of the Government of Nunavut.  As of
  yet, we haven't been able to get any real feedback from
  them as to whether this is needed.  What we do need to
  do here -- so it's something that's important to us,
  because we want to get on with this.  We will continue
  to make the attempts needed.
       And that concludes our presentation.  Thanks
  everyone for listening, and -- yeah.  Thanks very much.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Before I call a
  15-minute break, I'd like to welcome -- Kataisee
  Attagutsiak who has also joined us as the interpreting
  team.  Thank you.
       We'll take a 15-minute break for questioning.
  Thank you.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Welcome back.  We will open
  the floor to questioning of the applicant by AANDC,
  DND, public, staff and Board, not necessarily in that
  order, and after the questioning of the applicant, we
  will break for lunch and be back here for 1:30.
       AANDC, go ahead with your questioning.
  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
  Questions Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited
  MR. PARSONS:             Ian Parsons, AANDC.  Just a
  couple of questions.  The first one revolves around the
  amount of contaminated soil that was approximate in
  2013 and timelines for remediation.  In 2013, it was
  estimated that there was 17,000 cubic metres left and
  with capacity in your treatment cells for 3,200 cubic
  metres.  During our calculations of that, we were
  assuming that it would take two to three years longer
  than the 2016 estimated date that you guys applied.
  We're just wondering did you put more contaminated soil
  in each cell or how did -- how did the rate increase?
  MS. LAUDRUM:             Arlene Laudrum with SRK
  Consulting speaking for CanZinco.  In 2011, we had
  17,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil.  We've been
  remediating between 3,000 and 4,000 every year.  The
  rate of remediation increased significantly last year,
  and we were able to clean up another 4,000 cubic metres
  in 2014.  So now we have 6,000 cubic metres left.  And
  at the rate of remediation we're looking at, using the
  current system and the current quality objectives, we
  will be done by 2016, decommissioning the site.
  MR. PARSONS:             Second question:  In your
  presentation on Slide 26, it said that you will remove
  some more tank liners in 2015.  Will you do some
  sampling under there to see if there's any more
  contaminated soil?
  MS. LAUDRUM:             Yes.
  THE CHAIR:               Please state your name before
  you --
  MS. LAUDRUM:             Arlene Laudrum, SRK, speaking
  for CanZinco.  Yes.  Testing will be done under the
  liner to confirm that it's clean as well.
  MR. BALL:                It's Murray Ball with
  Aboriginal Affairs as well.  And I have a question
  about the development of the site-specific soil quality
  guidelines, and I guess we'll -- we'll intend to bring
  this up later in our presentation, but perhaps this is
  an opportunity to answer my question earlier than then,
  but you've -- you've identified that the consultants
  you have designing your study for the creation of the
  standards will use the same methods as were used to
  create the Canada-wide standards, and you know, in our
  preliminary review of the high-level document that you
  provided, we noted that there was a reliance
  exclusively on measuring changes in plant root growth
  and in -- in the work you're planning to do on site,
  but no -- no inclusion of looking at changes in insect
  populations, which I believe was part of the method
  used to establish the Canada-wide standards.  So I'm
  wondering if that's because there's -- that's not an
  option in the north or what the reasoning might be
  behind that?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  Yeah.  The work we're doing right now, we're looking at
  three plant species, northern wheat grass, alfalfa, and
  blue grama grass, so those are the plant species.
       But we are actually looking at insect species as
  well.  If you -- if you read the document, we're also
  looking at a type of springtail as well, so we are --
  which is very similar to -- it's actually a type of
  species that was included in the Canada-wide standard,
  and it's -- it's very similar to another type of
  springtail that -- that is present at the site at
  Nanisivik, so -- so we are looking at both plants and
  soil invertebrates.
  MR. BALL:                Okay.  That's my error then.
  My apologies.  Thanks.
  THE CHAIR:               Any further questions from
  AANDC?
  MR. BALL:                I guess just one point, for
  the record, and -- and that is the receipt of the most
  recent information from Nyrstar, the abandonment and
  reclamation plan.  We'd just like to note that we
  hadn't had time to review that when we prepared our own
  intervention, so we can adjust our current state of
  knowledge as we work through the process here, but I
  think it is a little bit of a challenge for us that
  we -- we had a deadline to make our submission, I
  think, the day following the receipt of this document,
  so just a note that it's presented a little challenge
  to us.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Anybody else?
  MR. BALL:                I think that's all the
  questions from AANDC at this point.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       DND?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from Defense
  Construction, representing DND.  We don't have a
  question at this point.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions to the applicant from the general
  public?
  Questions from Members of the Public
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        (OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN)
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
       (OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN)
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        I think it was already
  mentioned.  I wanted to ask, was there an indication of
  how many years the site will be monitored for?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  In this licence, we're obviously asking for -- to
  continue to monitor for water quality and other
  measures for another five-year period.  I think it
  would be unlikely that we could stop monitor (sic)
  after another five-year period.  You know, judging from
  other mine closure projects throughout the world and in
  other jurisdictions, I think it would be overly
  optimistic to think that that's efficient.  How many
  more years we would need to monitor beyond this
  five-year period?  It all depends on the results that
  we will receive over the next five-year period.  You
  know, to date, the results have been very good, but we
  need -- we need more data to be able to say, you know,
  at what extent we feel comfortable with us stopping
  monitoring, so I'm -- I'm quite certain that, in
  another five-year time, we will ask for another licence
  with renewed monitoring requirements, but exactly if
  that means we will monitor for another 10 years, 15
  years, I think it's premature.  We need more data to be
  able to understand when it's defencible to stop
  monitoring.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  (OTHER LANGUAGE
  SPOKEN)
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        The last question, those
  DND -- I think they are planning the naval facility,
  and they will occupy.  Will they do their own their own
  monitoring too?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay for Defense
  Construction Canada.  I'm representing DND.  I can only
  speak on behalf of the project.  The project has a
  requirement to monitor geotechincal conditions at the
  site with regards to the wharf.  We'll only be
  monitoring the thermal regime below the wharf and the
  movement of the soils at the wharf.  We have no plans
  of monitoring the remediation being done.  We are
  anticipating being transferred to a site that is fully
  remediated over time.  We will -- my understanding is
  there might be some due diligence sampling, some
  confirmatory sampling done by the Department to confirm
  the results of the remediation, and that would be the
  extent of what we will do.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Anybody else, questions?
       Questions to the applicant from Staff?
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Nyrstar Canada
  (Holdings) Limited
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair.  We do
  have a few questions.  One, I think we can ask
  immediately.  Second question or third, we might want
  to wait until after lunch so we can do a little bit of
  looking into our files to, I guess, clarify the
  question a little more.
       Pardon me.  David Hohnstein, Nunavut Water Board.
       So my question is actually with regards to the
  thermal monitoring and the -- the depth of thaw, and
  I'll apologize right off for not having gone back into
  the -- into the history of -- of the monitoring.  We're
  just relying on the information that was provided with
  this application, but you had mentioned that, you know,
  the active layer is staying within the -- within the
  cover and that the freeze depth has -- has progressed
  deeper every year, and I was wondering if there was --
  or where we would find the background information that
  would provide us with, I guess, the -- the certainty of
  the time of year that the information is being gathered
  now, which I believe is August/September annually for
  the last number of years.  Those times are when the --
  the active layer has -- has, I guess, progressed the
  furthest and beginning to freeze back.  So just from
  previous experience, I found there's a bit of a lag
  time from the time the air temperatures start freezing
  again to when the ground starts freezing back, so I was
  just wondering if -- if you could maybe elaborate a
  little more on that and maybe point us to the direction
  of, you know, previous.  I think there was some
  information provided by BGC on some studies done a
  while back, so thanks.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Yeah.  Johan Skoglund from
  CanZinco.  Yeah, you're correct.  BGC is helping us
  with all this work, and they have been since -- since,
  you know, the mine was operating, and they did all the
  closure work for us and continue to do the post-closure
  monitoring, which is very satisfying for me because
  they provide -- they have all the history, and they
  have a very good understanding of what's happening at
  the site.
       In terms of -- in terms of your question, we may
  have to talk to Jeff to get all the data, but the best
  source of the data is, obviously, the annual reports
  that we provide at the end of every season, which has
  all of the data in them that shows the trends and the
  results from the -- from the instruments that we pick
  up.  I mean, I think to elaborate -- to understand --
  you know, to respond properly to your question, we
  would need to go and look at that data, and I think the
  key is -- is to look at some of that quarterly data
  that we have, which we'll take later in the year
  because that should be able to tell us, you know, what
  might have happened between the last monitoring
  occasion during the warm season, during the summer
  season, and then during the fall, and I suspect that
  BGC can also shed some light on -- because they work on
  other projects in the Arctic.  They can also advise on,
  you know, what they've seen in terms of, you know, and
  what might be happening, you know, if there's a lag
  between -- as you say, between the last monitoring and
  the warmer temperatures and the, sort of, thawing of
  the cover.
       And the trend, in terms of if you look year by
  year, it's very clear.  There's some additional
  materials provided at the back of the presentation
  where you see that the freeze zone and into the
  tailings is progressing, you know, deeper and deeper
  every year, and the active thaw layer is becoming
  thinner, but to fully answer your question, I think we
  need to go back and study the data and talk to our
  engineer as well, so ...
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thanks, Mr. Chair.  David
  Hohnstein again.  Thanks.  I think you probably
  answered as best you could with -- with the resources
  available right now, and we'll -- we'll take a little
  bit of time maybe at lunchtime or later on to -- to go
  back and look through some of our registry and see if
  we can verify some of that information.  Thanks.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions from Board members to the applicant?
  Nunavut Water Board Questions Nyrstar Canada (Holdings)
  Limited
  MS. DEAN:                Thank you for your
  presentation.  Bernadette Dean.  Thank you for your
  presentation.  It was very informative.  As you can
  see, we have no forest or trees up here.  I'm
  curious -- but you might not be the one to answer this
  question.  We always hear the Arctic and the high
  Arctic has a very fragile ecosystem, and it's different
  from the rest of Canada, so I am curious how can
  Canada-wide standards be applied and accepted to this
  kind of environment.  Like I said, you might not be
  able to answer.  I'm just curious.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I think that's an excellent question, and I think that
  that speaks to why we feel it's more relevant or more
  accurate to actually develop a guideline that is
  specific to Nanisivik, so over the last five-year
  period, we have applied a Canada-wide, generic
  standard, and as you point out, that may or may not be
  relevant for this particular site.  We have different
  types of plant species here.  We have different insects
  living in the soil.  The soil itself will have
  different, you know, geophysical parameters, and it
  will look -- it will look different relative to the
  soil that was used to development the generic
  guideline, so that is exactly what we want to address
  with our work, so what we're doing is using the
  methodology that was used and developed by CCME for the
  generic guidelines, but we're applying it to the
  conditions and contaminants that exist at Nanisivik.
  So we believe that, by doing that, we can generate a
  guideline or a cleanup objective that's actually more
  relevant and more appropriate for the site that we are
  dealing with.
  MS. DEAN:                You also mentioned early on in
  your presentation about remediating the soil and adding
  nutrients to it, and where did those nutrients come
  from?
  MS. LAUDRUM:             The nutrients that we are
  adding to the soil have come from southern Canada.
  They are -- it's called urea and DAP.  They are
  fertilizers that are used commonly in agricultural
  (sic).  That was Arlene Laudrum speaking.
  THE CHAIR:               Any further questions from
  Board members?
  Nunavut Review Board Staff Questions Nyrstar Canada
  (Holdings) Limited
  MR. BOYER:               Mr. Chair, Craig Boyer.  Thank
  you.  I do have a question.  At the technical meeting
  and the prehearing conference, there was discussion
  about potential for land-use conflict, and there was,
  at that point in time, discussion that there was
  working towards a memorandum of agreement, and I
  understand that has been reached.  There is a
  memorandum of understanding or memorandum of agreement,
  and does CanZinco feel that the land-use conflict
  issues that were discussed at the technical meeting and
  the prehearing conference, have those been addressed,
  from your perspective?  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Yeah.  Johan Skoglund from
  CanZinco.  I think the first thing to say, and to
  remind ourselves what we actually said in that meeting
  was that our message was that we didn't believe this is
  an appropriate forum for discussing and resolving
  land-use conflicts.  I think we were pretty clear on
  that in the meeting.  The memorandum of agreement has
  been concluded, and it's between CanZinco and DFO, and
  I believe DFO was asked to file this with -- with the
  Board.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Craig?
  MR. BOYER:               Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Any further questions from the
  floor before we break for lunch?  No further questions.
       We will break for lunch, and we'll be back here at
  1:30, and AANDC will do their presentation.
  (LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT AT 12:11 PM)
  (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 1:33 PM)
  THE CHAIR:               Welcome back.  Before we go on
  to the presentation by AANDC, I understand that Staff
  has more questions to the applicant.
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  We
  have a couple of questions to the -- my name is Sean
  Joseph, technical advisor with the NWB.  The first
  question we have for the proponent has to do with the
  water quality monitoring recommended changes.
       I would first preface the question by saying -- by
  referring to Appendix H of CanZinco's application, page
  8 of the document entitled "Water Quality Monitoring
  Schedule For 2014-2018".  It indicates that proposed
  changes for the analytical test for Station 159 that
  include groups that was not originally included on the
  licence.  Could CanZinco confirm whether or not that is
  an oversight, or if not, provide rationale for the
  changes?
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund, CanZinco.
  What page number were you referring to, Sean?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Page 8 of that document, Table
  1.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Okay.  And maybe help me
  through.  Which -- which group were you concerned
  about?
  MR. JOSEPH:              So we're looking at Monitoring
  Station 159-6.  The analytical test group being
  proposed is NAN-1 and NAN 2.  Under the licence, the
  test group -- the test groups that are required are 1,
  3, and 4, I believe.  Let me just confirm.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            I can only assume this is a
  typo, but I'll have to confirm that.
       Yeah.  So NAN-1 is the metals and all the annums
  (phonetic) -- all the other ones.  NAN-2 is the
  hydrocarbons, and so that was the intention that those
  would be the groups that we monitor at 159-6.  Maybe
  I'm not understanding your question.
  THE CHAIR:               What is your name?  Name,
  please.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            I'm sorry.  Johan Skoglund,
  from CanZinco.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  MR. JOSEPH:              Mr. Chair, I'm not sure I
  understand the response.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I think I understand the question now.  I'm sorry about
  that.  So if I understand it currently, our current
  licence requires Groups 1, 3, and 4, and what we're
  asking for is Groups 1 and 2, and so the rationale for
  asking for 2 is that we think it's prudent to look for
  hydrocarbons at that location, given the close
  proximity to the work that we're doing at the dock
  site, where we're handling petroleum hydrocarbon
  impacted soil, so that's the rationale for -- for those
  two test groups in that location.
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Any other questions from
  Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Yes, Mr. Chair.  We have
  another question to do with the security associated
  with the project.  Prior to -- prior to the proposal of
  the new landfill for nonhazardous waste land for the
  site, the security that's been proposed is $2 million,
  and we are wondering whether or not CanZinco would be
  providing further consideration to that security
  amount, given the fact that they -- the new landfill
  was not originally part of the scope of the security
  among that that has been posted.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  So we did file a -- a cost estimate as part of the
  application that came out close to $2 million.  In that
  estimate, there was included both cost for cleaning up
  the contaminated soil at the dock site and also sort of
  a provisional number for -- for the landfill.  I
  believe that the preliminary number we put in was
  50,000.  After the filing of that initial cost
  estimate, we have done more detailed calculations, so
  closure costs both for the landfill and for the
  hydrocarbon-impacted soil at the dock side.  In both
  cases, those more detailed estimates are lower than the
  provisional numbers that we put into the original or
  the site-wide closure-cost est -- or
  rehabilitation-cost estimate.  We would be happy to go
  back and -- and revise the site-wide one, if the Board
  and others are looking for a complete alignment
  between, you know, the detailed documents and the
  site-wide estimate.  At this point, though, the 2
  million that we are proposing and the site-wide
  estimate supporting that, we consider to be
  conservative, so therefore, we have left it the way it
  was in the original application.
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you very much.  Sean
  Joseph, NWB.  Our next question has to do with
  the water quality requirements for the licence.  In
  your presentation, you indicated that, over the past
  five years, CanZinco has used very little water, and
  as -- far below the requirements that is included in
  the licence, and I'm wondering whether or not CanZinco
  has given any consideration to reducing the water
  quantity that is currently in the licence, given that
  empirical evidence, such as that less water is being
  used currently?  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  We would definitely be open to considering a lower
  limit, a lower allowance, because as we've concluded,
  we use hardly any water at all, and I believe the
  hundred cubic metres a day that's in our current
  licence and also the application for the renewed
  licence is a lot more than we need, so I'll have to go
  back and look at how this works.  I might need some
  guidance from the Board as well as to, you know, what
  are the various levels that we -- that we could ask
  for, but -- and that amount is more than we need, so
  we'd would be happy to reduce it, if that's the Board's
  desire.
  THE CHAIR:               Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph.  Thank you,
  CanZinco.  Another question we have for you is that
  CanZinco had indicated originally, in its application,
  that it wanted to backhaul some of the waste generated
  from the project site to Arctic Bay, and in subsequent
  correspondence with CanZinco, CanZinco included
  contingency to dispose of some of the waste that is
  generated by the project on site.  What we are
  wondering right now is whether or not the option to
  backhaul the waste through Arctic Bay is still
  included -- or is still a requirement for CanZinco.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  As it stands today, I don't think what we're proposing
  in the application has in any way changed.  The default
  option is to -- the very little waste we're talking
  about here from -- you know, from food containers and
  domestic waste that we generate from the few people
  that are doing the reclamation work.  Our primary
  intention is to take that to Arctic Bay.
       And we might want to add that there is no camp on
  site, so this is purely to do with, you know, what
  little waste that the contractors -- the handful of
  contractors we have, so the domestic waste they
  generate when they are on site doing their -- their
  reclamation work, and then they travel back to Arctic
  Bay in the evening.
  THE CHAIR:               Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph.  Thank you,
  CanZinco.  We have a -- it may not be the final
  question, but for the time being, this -- we'll stop at
  this question, but the other question we have for you
  has to do with the current location of the company
  because we knew you had a Vancouver office, and for
  reasons that we need -- for reasons -- we need this
  information is that we need to include that in any
  potential licence, if the Panel decide to issue a
  licence for the project, and we had contacted your
  Vancouver office, and there appear to be no lines there
  currently, and we're just wondering -- wanted to get
  some confirmation as to your current location.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund, CanZinco.
  CanZinco Mines Limited is incorporated in BC, so it's a
  BC company, but in terms of contact information, I
  believe we should change that such that they align with
  my current contact information, which would be my
  office address in Switzerland.
       Or there are other options as well.  We could
  provide a Canadian contact address and number, if
  that's preferable.  We do have several incorporated
  entities in Canada and lots of personnel in Canada as
  well, so ...
  THE CHAIR:               Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  This
  would be all for the time being.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Any further
  questions from Staff?  Thank you.
       Next presenter will be AANDC.
  KAREN COSTELLO, Affirmed
  MURRAY BALL, Affirmed
  IAN PARSONS, Affirmed
  THE CHAIR:               Please go ahead with your
  presentation.
  Presentation by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
  Development Canada
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Good afternoon, everyone.  As mentioned just a
  moment ago, my name is Karen Costello.  I am the
  director of resource management for Aboriginal Affairs
  Nunavut -- and Northern Development Canada in the
  Nunavut regional office.
       I'd very much like to thank the Nunavut Water
  Board for this opportunity to make a presentation and
  intervention regarding CanZinco's application to renew
  it's Type A water licence for the Nanisivik Mine
  property.
       I'm joined by Murray Ball, on my immediate right,
  who is our manager of water resources, and Ian Parsons,
  one over from my right, who is one of our regional
  coordinators with water resources.
       We appreciate the Nunavut Water Board for
  facilitating this licence application review and for
  CanZinco and its agents for responding to our questions
  and concerns.  Throughout this presentation, I will
  refer to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
  Canada as "the Department", and I would just quickly
  touch on a brief overview of the Department's
  responsibilities with respect to this licence renewal
  application under "Contributions", the contributions
  made by the Department with respect to the process so
  far.
       The Department has a broad mandate for the
  co-management of freshwater resources and the
  management of Crown land in Nunavut under a variety of
  applicable laws.  On the slide in front of you, Slide
  3, you will see these pieces of legislation listed:
  The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
  Development Act, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act,
  the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal
  Act and its associated regulations, the Territorial
  Lands Act and its associated regulations.
       The Department administers and enforces regulatory
  authorizations that pertain to Nunavut's Crown land and
  freshwater resources.  As we are in this process,
  we participate in the water licence process
  administered by this Board along with other interested
  parties, and we provide technical advice and expertise
  for the Board's consideration.
       Just take a moment to touch on what we have done
  through this process so far.  The Department has
  submitted three reviews to the Board, as well as being
  a participant during the technical meeting and
  prehearing conference earlier this summer.  The
  Department reviewed the scope of information included
  in the renewal and amendment application a recommended
  further information request.  A written memorandum was
  provided in March 2014.  That was brought followed by
  the Department conducting a technical review of the
  renewal/amendment application, and the Department's
  comments and recommendations were provided for the
  Board's consideration in June 2014.
       The Department conducted an additional technical
  review on additional documentation pertaining to the
  application once we received it from the applicant.
  Comments and recommendations were provided for the
  Board's consideration in a written submission on
  September 17th.
       As we stated, during the applicant's presentation,
  we only received the abandonment and reclamation plan
  on September 16th, and at this point, our comments had
  already been formulated, so we've only just had an
  opportunity to look at that plan.
       We'll now touch on our technical review comments
  and recommendations, and I'll turn the microphone over
  to Murray to speak to them.  Thank you.
  MR. BALL:                Thank you, Karen.  This is
  Murray Ball, and I'm turning this section over,
  actually, to Ian Parsons.
  MR. PARSONS:             Good afternoon, everyone.  Ian
  Parsons.  As Karen said, these comments were developed
  prior to receiving any new information from the
  licencee, CanZinco, so bear with us if things have
  changed.
       First, starting off, we want to talk about
  the contaminated soil at the 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.  The proponent
  hasn't provided sufficient detail and remediation
  objectives or remediation methods to allow for proper
  assessment.  AANDC, therefore, recommends that the
  proponent describe and explain, in more detail, what
  type of ex-situ bioremediation is being applied, the
  effectiveness of the technology in regards to the
  environmental conditions, and the in-use of the
  contaminated soil following remediation.
       A couple of questions also that we have is, will
  the soil be placed back in what's called Area 4 of the
  former tank farm area?  Or will it be placed or
  stockpiled elsewhere?
       The next four recommendations and comments are
  going to be directly applicable to the approach and
  methodology of the site-specific soil quality
  objectives.  The approach and methods for development
  of the site-specific quality objectives have been
  described at a very high level in the document prepared
  by the proponent's consultant Hemmera.  For example, a
  toxicity comparison will be conducted between
  laboratory tests and artificial soil spiked with
  fractionated samples of sweet crude oil and tests on
  field-collected soil.  However, the rationale and
  utility of the comparison has not been well developed
  in this proposal.
       AANDC recommends that the proponent describe how
  close these two soil types are, both physically and
  chemically, as well as providing rationale as to why
  sweet crude oil is an acceptable indicator for the
  gasoline and diesel contaminants found in the
  contaminated soil at the former tank farm.
       The proponent states that the most recent
  analytical results that will provide a basis for
  establishing the site-specific soil quality objectives
  are not yet available.  Because these results will be
  essential for formulating and assessing the development
  of the proposal objectives, AANDC recommends that the
  licencee submit the most recent analytical results to
  the Nunavut Water Board for additional review before
  the Board approves the proposed approach to
  establishing the site-specific soil quality objectives.
       AANDC is also concerned about residual
  contamination in regards to the proposed methodology
  and approach to the soil quality objectives.  In
  particular, AANDC is concerned about the uptake of
  contaminants in a plant life after the implementation
  of the proposed technology.
       AANDC requests that the proponent consider the
  possibility of bioaccumulation in the biota relying on
  such plants.
       AANDC also recommends that the approach being
  implemented should be more robust in that the approach
  should not solely rely on plant growth, but also
  include insect response.
       The next recommendation comment is with regards to
  the final security assessment.  AANDC appreciates the
  updated security assessment as it pertains to the soil
  treatment facility; however, AANDC recommends that this
  security estimate not be accepted until more details
  and results are known in regards to the site-specific
  soil quality objectives.
       As well, AANDC also recommends that a security
  assessment of the whole mine site be undertaken and
  prepared with Reclaim Version 7 and provide the
  licencing to the Nunavut Water Board for review prior
  to the licence being renewed.
       And here we have a couple of pictures.  Things may
  have changed this year.  This is from 2013.  The first
  picture to the left is of the biopiles, as well as, in
  the very background, you can see an excavator with the
  stockpile of contaminated soil, and the picture to the
  right is a more close-up view of the biopiles.
       In conclusion, the Department knows that licencing
  to date has done an adequate job in carrying the
  disclosure plan for Nanisivik Mine property.  With
  respect to the licence application presented, however,
  a few key areas need further elaboration and
  consideration.  Specifically, there are four general
  areas where this information needs to be provided and
  reviewed by the Board before the licence is issued:
  More detail regarding the type of ex-situ
  bioremediation being applied, the environmental
  conditions, and the in-use of the contaminated soil
  following remediation.
       Number 2:  More clarification on proposed
  methodology and approach for developing the
  site-specific soil remediation objectives.
       Number 3:  The potential long-term effects on the
  environment, including the uptake of residual
  contamination in plants and the bioaccumulation of
  biota relying on such plants.
       And Number 4:  An updated security assessment for
  the entire mine site, using the latest version of
  reclaim.  Thank you.
       Questions?
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions to AANDC from the applicant?
  Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited Questions Aboriginal
  Affairs and Northern Development Canada
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I think our general response is that, through the --
  through the submissions that were apparently provided
  after AANDC developed their comments and through the
  abandonment and reclamation plan and every other
  submissions, we have already responded, and the
  presentation here today, we have already responded to
  the questions that are being raised by the intervener,
  so we invite AANDC to -- to clarify if there is
  anything they feel hasn't been responded to, but as far
  as we're concerned, the question up here have already
  been addressed.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       AANDC?
  MR. BALL:                It's Murray Ball.  Thanks very
  much for your question back to us, Johan.  Yes.  It's
  certainly true that a number of our questions were
  addressed, to some extent, in the additional
  information that was provided by the proponent, and I
  think we've realized, for example, that the amount of
  soil that remains to be remediated is a lesser quantity
  than -- than we had identified in our -- in our review,
  so the -- the questions about the process of the
  ex-situ process, I think, to a large extent, have been
  satisfactorily addressed for us.
       But we do have some questions still in that regard
  about, I think, exactly where the contaminated soil
  will be placed.  I understand there was a response that
  it would be in a particular area, but we're a little
  bit unsure yet about the quantity and the timing,
  particularly, and I guess our concern is that we're
  looking at the notion of the site-specific guidelines
  for soil quality objectives, and we've seen a very
  high-level proposal from Nyrstar with respect to how
  that study will be done to demonstrate what the final
  objectives are.  I think it's unclear what effect that
  will have on the amount of time required, for example,
  to complete the remediation of the soil, and I -- I
  think that our questions sort of about the study design
  for demonstrating the site-specific objectives are
  probably something that could be provided to us as part
  of a completed study, but at this point in time, we
  don't feel like we have a detailed understanding of
  sort of the validity of that process, so those are, I
  think, key points that we wanted to carry forward, and
  I'm just going to check with Ian if there was another
  point.
       I'm sorry.  It's Murray again.  The final point --
  and we've touched on it, I think -- is that the final
  results for both the -- the study for determining how
  the quality objectives will be defined is -- is
  something that we would like to have an opportunity to
  take a critique -- critical view of at some point, and
  in terms of the final results for confirmatory
  sampling, we understand that there will still be some
  additional opportunity for us to follow up on that, as
  the process rolls forward.  Does that answer your
  question?  It's sort of a long answer.  I apologize.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Yeah.  Johan Skoglund from
  CanZinco.  Two things I heard in your response, Murray,
  so there was comments about the site-specific remedial
  objectives, and so the process that we're sort of
  working through is we have provided what we think is a
  satisfactory document that outlines the methodology
  that we use for that process.  There have been detailed
  questions related to that document that we have
  responded to.  For example, regarding, you know, what
  soil -- you know, if we use plant -- only plants or
  whether there also is soil invertebrates, another
  questions, so we feel we responded to that.
       Having said that, sort of the next step,
  obviously, now is to conclude this work and then
  provide a report that specifies, in detail, the work
  that we have completed, the results that we achieved,
  and the conclusions of that work, so -- so that would
  be the next step, so that will provide another
  opportunity to review, you know, what we have done and
  what we've concluded, and that report will go to the
  Board, and it will be the vehicle for us, you know,
  asking us to change the remedial objectives for the
  soil -- for the soil remediation, and I'm assuming
  everyone will get an opportunity to comment on that
  report.
       The second comment was about confirmatory soil
  sampling, which we haven't had questions from AANDC
  about before, but I do believe that, through the
  questions from DND and others, you know, we have been
  able to respond to the questions about confirmatory
  soil sampling, and there was an additional memo
  provided about this in response to the technical -- the
  technical meeting.
  THE CHAIR:               Was that a question?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund.  No further
  questions from me.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Any other
  questions that you would like the applicant to answer?
       DND, questions to AANDC.
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from DCC
  representing DND.  I have no questions for AANDC at
  this point.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Questions to AANDC from the
  public, from the floor?
  Questions from Members of the Public
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        I'm Tommy Tatatuapik from
  Arctic Bay.  My question -- first question, going back
  to page 13, I will have a question on that, page 13.
  The -- from -- from the tailings pond, when -- going
  down to the creek -- to the ocean, the tailings pond, I
  wonder if the water quality is good enough that it's no
  longer a concern, so my question is, when Inuit go out
  camping, we like to camp around the creeks and rivers,
  and so my question is when will the water quality in
  the creek be drinkable?  Can we drink the water from
  the creek coming from the tailings pond area?  So
  that's my first question.  And for those monitoring
  agencies, I think that's a question to them.
  THE CHAIR:               AANDC?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Karen
  Costello for Aboriginal Affairs.
       I thank the community member for their question.
  I believe the Slide 13 being referenced was in the
  applicant's presentation, but I just wanted to use this
  as an opportunity to assure the community member that,
  as part of our inspection programs, which will continue
  as long as there is a licence in place, we do, from
  time to time, collect water samples and to make sure
  that the -- any water that we are sampling meets the
  criteria that is specified in the licence.
       And now I'll turn it over to the applicant to
  respond to this specific question of Slide 13 of their
  presentation.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan --
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Yes.  I got it.  Thank you.
       My second question is that, when Nanisivik was an
  operating mine, the landfill road to the landfill,
  there was also a creek from the landfill down to the
  ocean, and Condowa Creek (phonetic) runs from the
  landfill site down, and so there's a creek down.
  There's an old sod house (sic) and cultural site near
  that place too.  So the landfill site, will the water
  quality be tested or be assured that it's drinkable?
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant?  Or AANDC?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  I hope I understood -- I hope I understood the question
  correctly.  If I didn't, I'll make another attempt, but
  the work that we're doing at the mine site, the most
  sort of significant closure component that we have is
  the tailing facility, as -- as was mentioned in the
  question, and as we talked about before, that has been
  rehabilitated, and the monitoring that we have done is
  suggesting that work is -- is successful.  The
  objectives that were set out before we started to do
  the closure was to return the land to the -- to the
  land use that existed before mine development, so
  that's the objective that we are -- that we are
  pursuing, and I think we're on a good way to reaching
  that objective.
       My understanding is that the water in both the
  Twin Lakes Creek and certainly Chris Creek are not --
  in terms of baseline qualities, have not been
  drinkable, so it is -- it's not part of our closures
  objectives to provide water that can be -- that can
  be -- that can be used for human consumption, but the
  closure objectives, in terms of returning the land to
  what it was used for before, and that that those
  uses -- that's part of what we're doing, and I think
  we're being responsible.  The response there would
  apply both to the tailing facility and to the landfill.
  We have two monitoring points around the landfill.
  It's -- the landfill is in a strange location because
  it's right on the watershed divide, so some water is
  flowing in one direction and some water in another
  direction, so we have two monitoring points.  In
  general, we see very, very little runoff from the
  landfill.  One of those two monitoring points is
  generally dry, but the quality of the water that we are
  able to monitor has been good and significantly lower
  than the standards that have been established.  So I
  hope that answers the questions.  If it didn't, then
  I'll -- I'll try again.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Tommy?
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Yes.  That's a good answer.
       Just a general comment or statement.  The DND
  continues on with their plan and when the creek and
  other watershed, which will be used for human or
  domestic use, those creeks and areas, so they have to
  be sure that, if people will be located on site, that
  they should be able to drink safely from the
  surrounding environment, so there should be a
  monitoring of any contamination in the water system.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions to AANDC from Staff?
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Aboriginal Affairs
  and Northern Development Canada
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph, Nunavut Water
  Board.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
       We have two questions for Aboriginal Affairs and
  Northern Development Affairs Canada.  The first
  question pertains to the monitoring changes that has
  been proposed by the -- the applicant, CanZinco.  What
  we're asking of AANDC is whether or not it is
  satisfied, with the proposed changes, that the
  applicant has requested in its application.
  MR. BALL:                Thanks, Sean.  It's Murray
  Ball with AANDC.  This is a question that we did have
  our consultant have a look at the proposal, and we're
  very comfortable with the changes that are being
  proposed.  We think that they will capture the risks to
  water that are remaining from the site.
  THE CHAIR:               Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph, NWB.  Thank you,
  Aboriginal Affairs.
       Our second question on security pertains to the
  fact that the level of credit that is currently held by
  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has
  expired in March of this year, I believe.  There is a
  built-in clause, I think, within the letter of credit
  that allows for automatic renewal; however, that clause
  could be deactivated upon request.  So could Aboriginal
  Affairs provide confirmation on whether or not the
  letter of credit has been renewed?
  THE CHAIR:               AANDC?
  MR. BALL:                Thanks, Sean.  It's Murray
  Ball here.  We have -- I haven't brought any
  documentation with me that shows the renewal, but the
  process that we've experienced with these letters of
  credit is that we don't always necessarily get
  confirmation of their renewal each year when it's an
  ongoing clause, such as the way this one is structured,
  but we would get a notice were the bank to decide not
  to renew the letter of credit, and we've had no such
  letter from the bank, so we've confident that it's
  still valid.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Sean Joseph, NWB.  Thank you,
  Aboriginal Affairs.  And that would be all for me,
  Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Any further questions from
  Staff?
       Board Members?
       Thank you for your presentation.
       Before we move on to the next intervener, we'll
  take a 15-minute break.  Is that okay with you?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay, from the DCC.
  That's fine with me.  Thanks.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Welcome back.  Before we
  proceed on to DND's presentation, I believe there's one
  more question from a Board member.
  Nunavut Water Board Questions Aboriginal Affairs and
  Northern Development Canada
  MS. DEAN:                Bernadette Dean, Board Member.
  I can't remember if it was Karen or someone that
  mentioned that you have inspection programs, as long as
  there's a licencing in process or in place.  How often
  do you do inspections?
  THE CHAIR:               AANDC?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Karen
  Costello for Aboriginal Affairs.
       The schedule of inspections is based on a risk
  protocol.  This site was inspected this past year, and
  based on the level, as is standard -- based on the
  level of compliance, if there are any issues, we will
  inspect with greater frequency, and this is standard
  for all licences.  We inspect licences based on the
  level of activity and the -- based on the number of
  issues that we find of compliance.
       In -- in this case, while I cannot say, for 100
  percent certainty, we will not inspect next year, but
  we will inspect on a basis that's appropriate to the
  level of risk and everything that we have documented
  with our -- with the previous inspections, but we
  will -- we will definitely inspect, I would say,
  every -- every two years, but again, if we find
  something or if, during the annual report, there are
  things that are reported with respect to the licence,
  then we will make sure that our inspection schedule is
  appropriate to -- to what we're seeing happen on site.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       If there are no further questions to AANDC, we'll
  move on to DND's presentation.
  LOUIS LEMAY, Affirmed
  THE CHAIR:               Please go ahead.
  Presentation by Department of National Defence Canada
  MR. LEMAY:               My name is Louis LeMay.  I'm
  with the Defence Construction Canada.  I'm here on
  behalf of the Department of National Defence to make a
  presentation to the Board.  I want to thank the Board
  for the opportunity to make this presentation at this
  hearing.
       The role and mandate for DND in this case is that
  we're -- DND will be the future administrator of the
  property for the Crown at the Nanisivik site.  We were
  also -- DND is also the implementer of the Nanisivik
  naval facility construction project, which is already
  being contracted out and underway, and we provide --
  intend to provide our role and mandate providing input
  to the Nunavut Water Board with regards to the licence
  application with regards to DND's interest with future
  land-use planning.
       So in introduction, we are -- I guess, CanZinco's
  remediation work within the former tank farm area shown
  (sic) some progress last summer.  During the season
  this year, we acknowledge that.  DND has reviewed
  CanZinco's water-use licence submission, and from our
  understanding, contaminated soil remains to be
  excavated in June 2015 within the footprint of our
  facilities that are already built on the site.
       These were some of the questions that were found
  during the application.  There's two of them, so the
  quality of the remaining berm -- there's a berm that's
  still there on site from the original construction, so
  we had some concerns with that berm whether -- what was
  going to happen with that berm.  CanZinco provided us
  some response, saying that they had data on this berm
  in 2011, and they would be incorporating this
  information in their report, their annual report this
  year.  My understanding is you also now will be doing
  additional sampling next year, so in our position, we
  will await and see the information in the final report
  and your sampling results from next year, you know, in
  anticipating of what's going to happen with that
  section of the berm.
       The other clarification was we were asking what
  official technical guidance documents are being
  followed.  CanZinco provided a list of documentation
  that they are following through their remediation work,
  and subsequent to that, DND is expecting to see more, I
  guess, detail provided with reference to these
  guidelines and these -- these regulations in their
  report.  We're expecting to see, maybe, the sampling,
  when you're referring to a specific guideline when
  you're taking samplings.  And we just want to see more
  detail in your report as to references to these --
  these guidelines, and that's information I have.
       The concerns that we have right now is the
  condition of the site at the end of this field season.
  The picture you see there may not all be clear.  This
  is one of the containment cells, and the red line that
  we've drawn on the picture is the top of the
  containment berm where the liner is.  We are concerned
  with possible migration of contaminants outside the
  containment cells with spring runoff.  At some points,
  you cannot see the liner.  You see the berm, the
  material inside the berm, and it just -- it covers the
  liners and goes straight out to the outside, and other
  sides, on the side, it is piled to the top of the berm.
  So we're concerned with possible migration of
  contaminants from the cells to the outside.  This is a
  concern we want to raise at this meeting.
       And we have one question, and I'm not sure who can
  answer this question, but it's a concern we want to
  bring up with -- because of the possible impact to our
  construction project.  If contaminated soil is
  encountered during the Nanisivik naval facility
  construction, after CanZinco has completed their
  remediation work, within the footprint of our
  construction, who is responsible for that contaminated
  soil?  And can the water-use licence include working to
  this effect?  Our concern is that we agree that they
  will clean this up, and it's all clean, and we take it
  over, our contractor starts excavating, and we find a
  cell of contaminated material that was not encountered
  by their remediation work -- was not seen, who would be
  responsible for the contamination if it's not the cause
  of our construction work and the mine was there before,
  and there was nobody before that?  That's where our
  concern is.  It's a contractual issue for us.  And
  that's the question to the Board.  I'm not expecting an
  elaborate answer at this time, but we just want to
  raise this concern.
       So I'm sorry.  We don't have significant issues
  with regards to the water licence renewal.  We have
  concerns with possible contaminant migration from the
  cells currently.  We want to review the final report of
  the progress report of this field season, the results
  and all that.  We need -- we are expecting that later
  this year.  We are looking to find out what would be
  our responsibility of contaminated soils encountered
  afterwards during our construction work.
       Another thing that's maybe not pointed out here,
  we would like -- there were some questions about -- I
  know AANDC is asking to reshape the ground so there is
  no ponding.  From our point of view, from our project,
  within the footprint of our building, of our structure,
  we would prefer if CanZinco does not backfill their
  excavation, because whatever material they're going to
  backfill, it's not suitable for our construction.
  We'll just have to excavate it again, so it's a
  question of cost.  It would be a benefit to them not
  having to backfill it.  It would be a benefit to our
  project not having to excavate it again.  So -- and
  that's pretty much I think -- that's the last slide
  that I have.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions to DND from the applicant?
  Nyrstar Canada (Holdings) Limited Responds Department
  of National Defence Canada
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  Thanks for the presentation from the DND.  A couple of
  comments, I guess, from our end to respond to a couple
  of things that were said.  In terms of the condition at
  the site and the way the material is stored and some of
  the cells, Arlene and I talked about this over lunch,
  so it a valid comment.  You know, there are a couple of
  cells in the lower treatment area where this condition
  exists.  What is the case, though, is that that
  material that is sitting, you know, on top of the side
  of the berm, as it sort of comes up, is old material
  that's been there since 2011, when the piles were first
  built, so that soil would have attenuated, and it
  would -- you know, the contaminant levels in that soil
  would be reduced.
       The reason it hasn't been removed is that we're
  concerned about, when we go in and dig it out and, you
  know, dig very close to the liner, there is a
  possibility of us damaging the liner, so that's been
  the reason for why we haven't, you know, removed it, as
  we probably should have.  I mean, the other thing, I
  think to mention in this context is that this is a very
  dry site.  We don't get a lot of precipitation, so in
  terms of the runoff that has the potential to get
  contaminated and then flow into uncontaminated areas.
  That potential is relatively low, given how little
  precipitation we get.  Having said all of this, it is a
  valid comment, and so what we will do at the start of
  the next season is that we will go in and scale this
  back, such that we don't have materials sitting -- it
  only concerns a couple of other cells, but where it
  exists, we will sort of move this all back so we
  reinstate the containment capacity that we've supposed
  to have in the cells.  It's a matter of being very,
  very careful, you know, with special equipment, going
  in and removing the soil that's now sitting on top of
  the liner, and we will do that at the start of the next
  season.
       And the last thing to mention is that, when we are
  finished with all of the work and when we are vacating
  the site, as it were, we are requested or required to
  do sampling of the soil that's underneath the treatment
  cells and the soil adjacent to the cells, so at that
  point, we will sample the whole area, and if there had
  been anything migrating from the facility, we'll be
  able to pick it up then and address it at that point,
  so I think that was -- that was in response to Slide 6
  about, you know, the condition at the site.
       On the next slide, in relation to the question, I
  fully agree with the DND.  I think we need a response
  from the Board and perhaps also some feedback also from
  AANDC on this.  And I think the first thing to say is
  that, when we did the larger rehabilitation of the
  site, there was also rehabilitation and reclamation of
  soil at the dock site.  So soil that's actually outside
  the boundary of -- the footprint tank farm was
  rehabilitated -- remediated at that point, so that soil
  is being considered clean, so from our point of view,
  others have been using those areas, like the Coast
  Guard and others, so we want to make clear that that
  soil is -- that's not what we're discussing.  That soil
  has already been remediated and sort of considered to
  be finished.  Anything that's picked outside the
  footprint of the facility is not CanZinco's
  responsibility.  In terms of the soil inside
  CanZinco's -- inside the footprint of the tank, I do
  think we need -- we, as CanZinco, need some level -- we
  need a process whereby we can get assurance and
  confirmation that the work that we have done meets the
  expectations of the regulator.  We need to get to a
  point where the Board, being our regulator; AANDC,
  being our inspection body; and also DFO, being our
  landlord, can acknowledge that the work that we've done
  is to their satisfaction.  We don't want to get into a
  situation where someone -- someone finds something ten
  years later and turns around and says, This was
  CanZinco's problem.  We don't -- that's something we
  really want to -- we want to get certainty that we've
  met -- met our requirements and kept our word, frankly,
  so I think we need, collectively, to think about what
  that process might look like.  It's both from a legal
  point of view, but also a practical point of view.  You
  can easily see issues with hydrocarbon spillage from a
  piece of equipment, for example.  You know, you get
  into -- you know, you get into questions about who
  caused this, and you get all kinds of interpretations.
  Also the sampling procedure, we are following a certain
  protocol for determining when the soil is clean, so if
  someone finds something, it will lead into all kinds of
  practical questions about, you know, what protocol, the
  use -- sort of future use or has been using, so I think
  we need to collectively think about, you know, what
  that handoff process, you know, whatever you want to
  call it, might look like, such that we can get comfort
  that, you know, we have met our obligations.  That's
  all for me.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions from AANDC to DND?
  MS. COSTELLO:            Karen Costello, for Aboriginal
  Affairs.  We have no questions for the Department of
  National Defence at this time.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Questions to DND from the public?  From the
  public?  Tommy Tatatuapik to DND?
  Questions from Members of the Public
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        I'm Tommy Tatatuapik.  I'm
  from Arctic Bay.  I'm -- I'm one of the rangers from
  Arctic Bay.  I want to help you -- that we have to know
  all the information that we can get before the DND
  takes over that site.  One of the -- the -- one of the
  things that I have issues with is at the dock.  The
  road that leads from Nanisivik to Arctic Bay, there's
  no one that is looking after the road sites.  That is
  one of the concerns that I have is who is going to be
  looking after the road -- the road that leads from
  Arctic Bay to Nanisivik?  Who will be responsible for
  that, maintenance of the roads?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from DCC
  representing DND.  The road between Arctic Bay and
  Nanisivik is a Nunavut public highway and is being
  maintained by the Government of Nunavut.  At this
  point, it's actually being cleared right now through a
  local contract, I guess, to clear the snow to keep it
  open because our contractor is on site right now.  My
  understanding is that, when there is no work going on
  at Nanisivik over the winter, the road will not be
  cleared, but when there is work going on, the road is
  being cleared.
       In the long term, DND is working to a
  funding-transfer agreement with the Government of
  Nunavut to provide funding for the maintenance of the
  road while -- when the facility is going to be under
  operation, on a yearly basis, during the navigable
  season only.  That means that we will not pay for
  keeping it open all year round, but it will be open
  during the navigable season.  So probably in the early
  part of June, when we start ramping up, we will clear
  the snow to open up the road.  It will be open all the
  way through until the end of the navigable season.
       Obviously, with time, the navigable season is most
  likely going to expand in time, so that period may be
  longer.  Right now we're probably looking between June
  and October.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  (OTHER LANGUAGE
  SPOKEN)
  TOMMY TATATUAPIK:        Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Questions to DND from Staff?
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Responds to Department of
  National Defence Canada
  MR. COTE:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Damien
  Cote.  Perhaps, because the question has been raised,
  we don't want to leave it hanging.  This won't be a
  definitive answer, but let me provide some context with
  respect to the question.  Pursuant to Section 46 of the
  Nunavut Waters And Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal
  Act -- and I'll read it because it's very short.  It
  says the following:  (as read)
       The expiry or cancellation of a licence does
       not relieve the holder from any obligations
       imposed by the licence.
  So given that language and thinking of an applicant or
  a licence holder here, it is a little tricky.
  Moreover -- and, in fact, we are on the record as late
  as last week, indicating that the issue of life of mine
  or life of project or life of undertaking is not
  defined to the point where we're able to establish when
  there is a clear line or a clear end to a project, so
  that is a bit of a policy gap that exists within this
  jurisdiction and one that, as the Board encounters
  these projects, such as the one before us today -- and
  there are others that are approaching the end of
  life -- it is difficult, to say the least, to determine
  where that line will be.  That is an issue that the
  Board is well aware of.  It's also an issue that others
  in this room are also well aware of, and it's one that
  we're trying to resolve.  Until we manage to resolve
  that issue, we're left with the language that's
  currently in the Act that I quoted, and the need to go
  on a case-by-case basis to try to address these
  questions.  So that's not terribly specific, but that's
  probably the best we can provide at this time.
  Hopefully that helps.
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay with DCC for DND.
  Thank you for your answer.  I just want also to clarify
  with CanZinco that our concern is mainly with the area
  of the fuel -- the oil fuel farm is where -- because
  we've done confirmatory sample on the other areas of
  the site, and they were satisfactory in the past.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Questions from
  Staff?
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Department of
  National Defence Canada
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Sean
  Joseph, NWB.  The first question for DND has to do with
  the mention that was made of DND as human
  administration of the property in the future, and I was
  wondering whether or not DND could elaborate a bit on,
  you know, how soon would that be and the nature of that
  relationship that they would have, the transfer of that
  responsibility, rather.
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from DCC,
  representing DND.  I don't have that information
  per se, like, when that's going to happen.  All I do
  know is, in the treasury board approval for the AOPS
  project, the wording in the approval talked about a
  transfer of administration in 2014, so I do know they
  are working in that -- in that spirit, in the way it
  was written down, but to confirm to you whether it's
  going to be transferred this year or not, I do not have
  that information right now.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Staff?
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Sean
  Joseph, NWB.  Next question has to do with how
  satisfied is the DND that the footprint of the current
  project that is before the Board for the renewal of the
  Type A licence, how satisfied is DND that that would
  not impact the project that it mentions in its
  application?
  THE CHAIR:               DND?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay with DCC for DND.
  I've got to admit we have concerns.  It has impacted
  our project in a way that we've had to put clauses in
  our contract to delay access to certain portions of the
  site for construction, so the area where the
  remediation is going on, our contractor does not have
  access to at this point.  The earlier we can get
  access, the better.  Our concern is that right now the
  contract stipulates June 2016 that they will have
  access to that area of the site.  The earlier the
  better, but if it's not remediated by June 2016, it's
  going to have financial impacts to the construction of
  the Nanisivik naval facility.
  MR. JOSEPH:              Thank you, DND.  That will be
  all for me, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Craig?
  MR. BOYER:               Craig Boyer, legal counsel for
  the Board.  This is a question I put to the applicant
  earlier, but from DND's perspective, the land conflict
  issues that were raised during the technical meeting,
  the prehearing conference, have they, to DND's
  perspective, been addressed through the memorandum of
  agreement that has been referenced?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay with DCC for DND.
  I can't answer that question.  I'm not involved with
  those direct MOUs.  There is an MOU being written.
  There is actually another treasury board submission
  being drafted for the AOPS project, which includes DFO
  about the property.  My understanding is that they're
  working to transfer the property over to DND, and then
  I guess the conflicts with land use will just be in the
  hands of DND.
  MR. BOYER:               Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Any further questions from
  Staff?
       Damien?
  MR. COTE:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Damien
  Cote.  A clarification, and this is to the proponent
  and DND, about the road.  I think it's been clearly
  explained that the GN is handling the road, and we also
  heard that, in the event that there's some deficiency
  there, that there seems to be contingency.  I'm
  thinking back on the presentation of the applicant with
  respect to the landfill, they're transportation, the
  backhauling of waste.  Are there -- I know it's a small
  amount.  We've noted that.  Curious to know if there's
  a contingency in place in the event that the road --
  because you're depending on a third party, that you
  don't necessarily control.  Curious to know if there's
  contingencies in place in the event, for the waste, in
  particular, that the road would no longer be useable.
  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               DND?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from DCC for DND.
  My understanding is the road will need to be
  maintained, passable, functional for the life of the
  facility, which is why the transfer agreement for funds
  is being implemented.  Currently, it is the GN who is
  paying for the maintenance of the road through -- but
  there's ongoing discussions.  To tell you what the
  details or when that transferring agreement is going to
  be in place, I'm not the one to work on that.  I know
  that is being worked.  There's pressure being put from
  the Department to the GN to get this thing rolling
  faster, and I believe it's in both governments'
  interests that this gets done quicker, but I think
  there's -- it's a lengthy process.  It has to do with
  financial agreements, how they get to transfer the
  money, and that kind of stuff, so it is a lengthy
  process, and it's probably -- my understanding is a
  unique one right now.
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  We don't have a particular contingency or backup plan
  should the road not exist.  In the past, we have had
  concerns in relation of the road.  It's always been at
  the start of the season, in terms of actually getting
  the road open, you know, cleared of snow such that we
  can get in and do our remediation works.  Our concerns
  have not been sort of the general upkeep, and because
  of the holding of the material from the dock site up to
  the landfill, it's not a particularly time-sensitive
  activity.  We can do it at any point during the season.
  For us, it's -- it's unlikely to present a significant
  concern or a significant issue.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Any further
  questions from Staff?
       Board members?  Bernadette?
  Nunavut Water Board Questions Department of National
  Defence Canada
  MS. DEAN:                Bernadette Dean.  English is
  my second language, so sometimes I don't understand,
  but I don't know anyone -- if they could explain to me
  what a berm is.  Thank you.
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from DCC.  A berm
  is a granular structure made with soil to -- it's
  almost like a hill, an elongated hill, and it's
  typically used as a containment structure with a liner
  on the inside or without a liner to control runoff
  water or contaminants to contain them.  So it's
  basically a pile of dirt in a line.
  THE CHAIR:               Anybody else on the floor?
  Joe?
  MR. PAMEOLIK:            Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Joseph
  Pameolik here, Nunavut Water Board.
       Question for DND.  Louis, you're still waiting for
  a report from CanZinco regarding the berm, are you?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from DCC.  I
  believe they mentioned that they are going to provide
  us -- there's a final report, which they provide to the
  Water Board every year, and they have indicated that
  they would provide the data on the berm with that.
  They've indicated that they had that in 2011 about the
  berm, but my understanding in their presentation is
  they don't seem to be able to locate some of the data.
  From their presentation, they have indicated that they
  will sample this berm in 2015 and test them again and
  provide the data, and we're satisfied with that if the
  data comes clean.
  MR. PAMEOLIK:            Joseph Pameolik, NWB.  So
  really what we're waiting for is next year, summer, to
  review the evaluation inspection of that berm, and then
  upon you receiving it, what you will be doing now is --
  is looking at the technical library from the GN and
  national regulations and stuff, so you're really
  looking at the end of 2015 for your comments regarding
  the berm, whether or not contaminants are leaching or
  not?  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               DND?
  MR. LEMAY:               Louis LeMay from DCC,
  representing DND.  We would expect that CanZinco will
  provide their results as soon as they have them in
  2015.  We have a concern that, if we wait until the end
  of twenty -- the season 2015, it will be too late for
  us.  It will impact our contract, so by the end of the
  season 2015, we expect that their remediation work is
  completed and there is nothing left, within our -- not
  completed totally, but within the footprint that we
  need for our construction, we need it to be complete,
  earlier if possible.  If they tell us in June 2015,
  after their sample, that it's clean and they have
  excavated the 50 cubic metres that -- and they show
  it's all clean, we will change our contract and allow
  our contractor access to that in 2015 because it's in
  their best interest to finish this earlier, but if it's
  not done by 2015, it's going to impact cost on our
  contract.  At that point, there will be a decision that
  will need to be made by the Department how to handle
  that contamination; it's in our way.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  MR. PAMEOLIK:            Thank you, Louis.  Joseph
  Pameolik, NWB.  I think that's all for now.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Anybody else from the floor?
  MR. SKOGLUND:            Johan Skoglund from CanZinco.
  So just to quickly add to that, this berm that we're
  talking about is probably 100 to 150 metres long.  We
  have samples -- confirmatory samples from the foot --
  for the majority of the berm, and those results we have
  provided to the DFO, which is our direct counterpart.
  DND is not a direct stakeholder of us, so we've
  provided them to our landlord, so they have those
  results, and we will also put them in our report, as we
  have -- as we have talked about here today.  What's
  missing today is a 25-piece portion of that berm, so
  that's what we're saying, you know, as soon as we are
  able in 2015 in June, when we get back, we will sample
  that portion of the berm, confirm hopefully that it's
  clean and then provide those results to the landlord.
  So that will not take that long.  That will take a few
  weeks to get that done at the beginning of the 2015
  season.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Anybody else from
  the floor?
       We seem to be approaching the end of our agenda
  very quickly here, and tonight we will be coming back
  here at 6:30 for a community session, so we will
  adjourn until 6:30 tonight.  We'll see you back here
  tonight.
  MR. COTE:                Mr. Chair, just before we
  leave, to keep everyone informed, it's our
  understanding that DFO is arriving this evening and
  will be here for the community sessions, and they, much
  like both AANDC and DND today, have the opportunity to
  present.  We're hoping tomorrow morning they will have
  the opportunity to do the same, so I thought I would
  keep you up to date on that.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  _______________________________________________________
  PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL 6:30 PM
  _______________________________________________________

  

  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