NUNAVUT WATER BOARD

  

   Renewal and Amendment Application for Type "A" Water
      Licence No: 2AM-LUP1520 for the Lupin Gold Mine

  
  
  ___________________________________________________
                         HEARING
                         VOLUME 1
  ___________________________________________________

  

  
                    Kugluktuk, Nunavut
                     January 15, 2020
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  
  January 15, 2020         Morning Session          8
  Opening Remarks                                   11
  KARYN LEWIS, BELINDA LABATTE, DAVID HOHNSTEIN,    34
  KEN BOCKING, SARA WILKINS, ALVIN TONG, JIM
  MCKINLEY, KENNETH RUPTASH, Affirmed
  Presentation by Lupin Mines Incorporated          34
  Discussion                                        73
  January 15, 2020         Afternoon Session        75
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated           76
  Presentation by Lupin Mines Incorporated          80
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines   86
  Incorporated
  Environment and Climate Change Canada Questions   87
  Lupin Mines Incorporated
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines   95
  Incorporated
  Response to Nunavut Water Board Question by       104
  Environment and Climate Change Canada
  Response to Nunavut Water Board Question by       104
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada
  
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines   105
  Incorporated
  Questions for Lupin Mines Incorporated by         106
  Community Representatives
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines   109
  Incorporated
  Nunavut Water Board Panel Questions Lupin Mines   112
  Incorporated
  GODWIN OKONKWO, Sworn; GERD WIATZKA, NOAH NOAH,   115
  Affirmed
  Presentation by Crown-Indigenous Relations and    117
  Northern Affairs Canada
  Lupin Mines Incorporated Questions                133
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions               142
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada
  Nunavut Water Board Panel Questions               149
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated           151
  Nunavut Water Board Panel Questions               152
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada
  Discussion                                        153
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated           157
  Nunavut Water Board Panel Questions               157
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada
  Certificate of Transcript                         166

                         EXHIBITS
  Description                                       Page
  
  EXHIBIT 1 - Hard Copy, PowerPoint Presentation,   31
  Lupin Mine Application for Renewal and Amendment
  of Licence 2AM-LUP1520, Mandalay Resources
  (English and Inuinnaqtun)
  
  EXHIBIT 2 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary          31
  Lupin Mine Final Closure and Reclamation Plan
  (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 3 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary          31
  Lupin Mine Final Closure and Reclamation Plan
  (Inuktitut)
  
  EXHIBIT 4 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary          31
  Lupin Mine Final Closure and Reclamation Plan
  (Inuinnaqtun)
  EXHIBIT 5 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary          31
  Lupin Mine Final Closure and Reclamation Plan
  (French)
  
  EXHIBIT 6 - Hard Copy, Technical Memo From Alvin  32
  Tong (Stantec Consulting) To Karyn Lewis (Lupin
  Mine Incorporated) Dated January 9, 2020,
  Reference: Supporting Information to the
  Contingency Contaminants Management Decision
  Matrix (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 7 - Hard Copy, Technical Memo From Alvin  32
  Tong (Stantec Consulting) To Karyn Lewis (Lupin
  Mine Incorporated) Dated January 10, 2020,
  Reference: Supporting Information for the Dam
  Stability and Cover Design (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 8 - Hard Copy, Technical Memo From Ken    32
  Bocking (Golder Associates) To Karyn Lewis (Lupin
  Mine Incorporated) Dated January 10, 2020,
  Reference:  Supporting Information to the
  Conceptual Design for the Waste Rock "Dome" at
  Lupin Mine (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 9 - Hard Copy, Resumé of Ken Bocking,     32
  Golder Associates Ltd. (English)
  EXHIBIT 10 - Hard Copy, Resumé of Jim McKinley,   32
  Stantec Consulting Ltd. (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 11 - Hard Copy, Resumé of Alvin Tong,     32
  Stantec Consulting Ltd. (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 12 - Electronic Copy, Resumé of Sara      33
  Wilkins, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 13 - Electronic Copy, Summary of          79
  Additional Commitments and Issue Resolution Dated
  January 15, 2020 (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 14 - Electronic Copy, Updated Lupin Mine  79
  Remediation Schedule January 2020 Dated January
  13, 2020 (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 15 - Electronic Copy, Security Framework  79
  Milestones for draft water licence framework
  (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 16 - Hard Copy PowerPoint Presentation,   116
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada, Lupin Mine Inc. Renewal/Amendment
  Application for Water Licence 2AM-LUP1520 for
  Lupin Mine Project (English/Inuinnaqtun)
  EXHIBIT 17 - Hard Copy Executive Summary,         116
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 18 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary         116
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada (Inuinnaqtun)
  
  EXHIBIT 19 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary         116
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada (French)

  

  

  

  

  
  Proceedings taken at the Kugluktuk Recreation Complex,
  Kugluktuk, Nunavut
  _______________________________________________________
  January 15, 2020         Morning Session
  
  NUNAVUT WATER BOARD
  L. Toomasie              The Chair
  A. Hanson Main           Vice-Chair
  A. Ningark               Panel Member
  
  NUNAVUT WATER BOARD STAFF
  T. Meadows               Legal Counsel
  S. Autut                 Executive Director
  K. Kharatyan             Director of Technical Services
  B. Kogvik                Director of Board
                           Administration and
                           Communications
  R. Dwyer                 Manager of Licencing
  D. Donald                Technical Advisor

  

  
  
  APPLICANT
  
  LUPIN MINES INCORPORATED
  K. Lewis                 Project Manager
  B. Labatte               Chief Development Officer,
                           Mandalay Resources
  C. Kowbel                Legal Counsel, Lawson Lundell
  D. Hohnstein             Consultant, Lupin Mines
                           Incorporated
  K. Bocking               Principal, Golder Associates
  S. Wilkins               Project Manager, Water
                           Resources, Stantec Consulting
  A. Tong                  Senior Geotechnical Engineer,
                           Stantec Consulting
  J. McKinley              Senior Hydrogeologist, Stantec
                           Consulting
  K. Ruptash               VP Projects, Nahanni
                           Construction

  

  

  INTERVENORS
  
  CROWN-INDIGENOUS RELATIONS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA
  G. Okonkwo               Manager of Water Resources
  N. Noah                  Land Administrator Major
                           Projects
  G. Wiatzka               VP Director of Mining, Arcadis
  S. Dewar                 Director Resource Management
                           (Via Teleconference)
  D. Kohlenberg            Department of Justice
                           (Via Teleconference)
  
  ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA
  E. Walker                Senior Environmental
                           Coordinator
  A. Wilson                Lead - Water Quality Expert
                           Support
  E. Watson                Climate Services (Via
                           Teleconference)
  
  INTERPRETERS/TRANSLATORS
  B. Kogvik                Inuinnaqtun Language
                           Translator
  J. Otokiak               Inuinnaqtun Language
                           Translator
  
  J. Albert, CSR(A)        Official Court Reporter
  
  N. Poitras               Sound Technician
  _______________________________________________________
  (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 9:07 AM)
  Opening Remarks
  THE CHAIR:               Good morning.  I hope you can
  hear me, 1, 2, 3, testing 1, 2, 3.  All right.  Good.
  Okay.
       Good morning once again.  Welcome to the public
  hearing for Type "A" Water Licence submitted by Lupin
  Mine Incorporated -- it feels good.  Too warm in
  here -- seeking authorization to renew and amend their
  water licence for initially requested terms of seven
  years, until 2027, and then updated to 12 years' use of
  water and deposit of waste associated with the closure
  and the reclamation stages of a mining undertaking.
       My name's Lootie Toomasie, and I am the
  chairperson of the Nunavut Water Board and hearing
  chair for today's public hearing.
       Over the two days, the Nunavut Water Board will be
  considering LMI's application to authorize activities
  associated with the final closure and the reclamation
  of the Lupin Mine Project, which sits approximately 285
  kilometres south of Kugluktuk on Contwoyto Lake.
       The mine has not operated since 2005 and has been
  under care and maintenance since that time.  The
  application to renew and amend the existing water
  licence requests the use of 250,000 cubic metres of
  water per year during active reclamation for
  approximately two years, followed by a drop in use to
  5,000 cubic metres per year during the post-closure.
  The application also requests the authorization of use
  of deposit of wastes associated with various site
  reclamation activities and waste-management facilities
  remaining on-site.
       Before we proceed with the hearing, please let us
  begin with a prayer.  Let's stand and pray --
  Opening Prayer
  THE CHAIR:               -- on behalf of the Nunavut
  Water Board, I welcome you to the hamlet of Kugluktuk.
       Now, to provide you with some background and set
  the stage for the hearing, the Nunavut Water Board,
  which I shall refer to as "the Board" or "NWB", is an
  institution of public government created under Article
  13 of Nunavut -- of the agreement between the Inuit of
  the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen
  in Right of Canada, "Nunavut Agreement".  The NWB is
  responsible for the use, management, and regulation of
  freshwater in Nunavut Settlement Area.
       The purpose of this public hearing is to review an
  application filed by Lupin Mines Incorporated -- I may
  refer to them as "LMI" or "the Applicant" -- for
  renewal and amendment to the existing Type "A" Water
  Licence 2AM-LUP1520, under the Nunavut Waters and
  Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, to authorize the
  use of water and deposit of waste associated with the
  reclamation and post-closure monitoring of the Lupin
  Mine Project.
       Under Article 13, Section 13.3.6 of the Nunavut
  Agreement and Section 29 of the Nunavut Waters and
  Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, the Board has
  delegated its power to dispose of all matters related
  to the processing of LMI's application for this renewal
  and amendment to Type "A" Licence Number 2AM-LUP1520,
  including the conduct of this public hearing to a panel
  of the Board, which the Board refers to as the "Lupin
  Panel" or "Panel P11".
       I will be chairing this panel, and with me today,
  as members of the panel, are Board members Amanda
  Hanson Main on my right, and to my left is Alex
  Ningark.
       Several Staff members, who have contributed to the
  NWB's administration and technical review of the
  application are present, along with legal counsel to
  the NWB.  I ask them to wave when I say your name.
       Stephanie Autut -- sorry, Stephanie Autut, sorry,
  sorry about that -- Stephanie Autut, executive
  director; and Karén Kharatyan, director of technical
  services.  I always have a hard time pronouncing his
  last name.  Sorry about that, Karén.  Ben Kogvik,
  director of Board administration and communications is
  at the back, at the interpreting area.  Richard Dwyer,
  manager of licencing is out at the front; and Derek
  Donald, technical advisor; and Teresa Meadows from
  Meadows Law, legal counsel to the Board.
       In addition, we have two interpreters available
  for simultaneous -- that's not my language, too --
  interpretation throughout the year -- sorry, throughout
  the hearing.  I'm sorry.  Ben Kogvik, in-house
  interpreter to the Board, and Joe Otokiak, who is
  originally from Cambridge Bay, now in -- living in
  Yellowknife.
       For audio support, we have Norbert Poitras, if
  I've pronounced your last name properly, from PIDO.  If
  you experience any difficulties with your headsets,
  Norbert is able to provide you assistance.
       To ensure an accurate recording of the proceeding
  is kept, we have with us a court reporter, Julie
  Albert, from Dicta Court Reporting Inc.
       Before I move to an overview of this application
  and what to expect today during this public hearing,
  there are some important housekeeping items for
  everyone here.
       First, as indicated earlier -- sorry.  First, as
  indicated earlier, there's interpretation available
  throughout the hearing in English and Inuinnaqtun.
  Earpieces can be obtained from the table located just
  by the door as you come into this room.  So Channel 1
  is the floor, and Channel 2 is English, and Channel 3
  is broadcasting in Inuinnaqtun.  When you speak into
  the microphone, please make sure you have turned off
  your earpieces to prevent audio feedback or
  interference with the speakers.
       Second, the Board appreciates everyone, including
  the Applicant, Intervenors, and members of the public
  sign in on the sheet located at the table as you come
  in.  This is an important record of the hearing, and we
  appreciate your help in making sure it is complete.
       Thirdly, the agendas for the public hearing and
  the community sessions are available at the back.
  Please pick one up and follow along with us as we
  proceed.
       The washrooms are located at the lobby as we came
  in through here, out in the lobby, and the exits are
  located as we came through the lobby, and there is one
  here at the back here.  There will be coffee, tea, and
  snacks brought in throughout the hearing during breaks,
  and you are welcome to help yourself throughout the
  day.
       I would also like to remind everyone to please
  turn off your cell phones or put them on silent before
  we begin.
       Finally, to assist both our court reporter and our
  interpreters, please wait to have a microphone before
  you speak, then state your name, speak clearly and
  slowly, and avoid the use of abbreviations.  We
  appreciate your assistance in making sure your comments
  are recorded, and the Board's record of proceedings is
  accurate and complete.
       Prior to identifying and introducing all of the
  parties in attendance today, I will provide a
  description of the application that is before the
  Board.
       The application we'll be discussing today is for a
  renewal and amendment to existing Type "A" Water
  Licence Number 2AM-LUP1520 requested by Lupin Mines
  Incorporated.  The scope of the application is
  generally as follows:  The use of 685 cubic metres of
  water per day or 250,000 cubic metres per year during
  active reclamation, followed by 5,000 cubic metres per
  year during post-closure monitoring, and the permanent
  deposit of waste associated with final closure of the
  Lupin mine site.
       The following is a list of some of the key
  documents pertaining to the Type "A" Water Licence
  renewal and amendment, Application Number 2AM-LUP1520,
  submitted to the Water Board, Nunavut Water Board, by
  the Applicant to date:
       On July 27, 2018, the applicant filed the main
  application package, including the following documents:
  A cover letter, application form, and executive summary
  in English, and Licence 2AM-LUP1520 application for
  renewal and amendment supporting submission, which
  included the final closure and reclamation plan and
  security cost estimate.
       On February 5, 2019, the Applicant supplemented
  the application materials by providing the following:
  A compliance assessment and status report; executive
  summaries in Inuinnaqtun and Inukitut.
       On March 19, 2019, the Applicant provided
  additional information in response to information
  requests received from Intervenors.
       On May 17, 2019, the Applicant provided additional
  information in response to technical review comments
  and recommendations made by Intervenors.
       On August 15, 2019, the Applicant provided
  technical memo: Waste Rock Information from Lupin Mine
  Tailings Containment Area.  In response to commitments
  agreed to by parties at the NWB technical meeting and
  pre-hearing conference on June 6 and 7, 2019.
       On October 15, 2019, the Applicant provided the
  Health -- Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
  Report, the conceptual design of the waste rock covered
  dome, the decision matrix for dealing with exposed
  tailings, if they arise, and a geophysical survey of
  the frozen-core dams.
       On June -- sorry, on November 15, 2019, the
  Applicant provided geophysical details of engineered
  structures, risk assessment of selected dams, the draft
  water licence framework, and a security release
  framework.
       On January 10, 2020, the Applicant provided
  presentation materials for this public hearing, along
  with some additional information/clarification
  associated with its commitments made at the technical
  meeting.
       Copies of all submissions received from all
  parties and correspondence from the Board associated
  with the application are available on the NWB's Public
  Registry and the FTP site.  In addition, our manager of
  licencing, Richard Dwyer, has available for the public
  reviewing at this hearing, the electronic copy of the
  Public Registry for this application and paper copies
  of some of the key documents for the application
  received to date.  If you are interested in reviewing
  any of the documentation, please ask Richard.
       Now, I'm going to provide you with a brief
  overview of the procedural history for the application
  that is before the Board, which captures only the major
  procedural steps.
       July 27, 2018, NWB received a Type "A" Water
  Licence application for the amendment and renewal of
  Licence 2AM-LUP1520 for the Lupin Mine Project from
  LMI.
       February 1, 2019, NWB received NPC conformity
  determination indicating that the project is situated
  outside the area of approved land-use plan and that a
  review of the project by NIRB is not required.
       February 5, 2019, NWB received summaries of the
  application translated into Inukitut and Inuinnaqtun as
  well as compliance assessments and a status report from
  LMI.
       February 6th, 2019, NWB issued correspondence
  requesting that interested parties conduct a
  completeness review of the application and provide
  information requests to the Applicant.
       March 4, 2019, Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs -- I will call them "CIRNAC" for
  short -- responded to the completeness review
  indicating they had a number of information requests
  for the Applicant.
       March 19, 2019, LMI responded to information
  requests by CIRNAC.
       March 25, 2019, CIRNAC confirmed that the level of
  information provided by LMI was adequate to complete
  full technical review of the application.
       March 29, 2019, NWB received a notice -- sorry,
  NWB issued a notice application for the application and
  indicated the commencement of the NWB's 30-day
  technical review period.
       April 30, 2019, NWB received a technical review
  commitment -- comments from CIRNAC and Environment and
  Climate Change Canada -- I will call them "ECCC" for
  short -- and requested that LMI provide response.
       May 23, 2019, NWB distributed the draft agenda and
  correspondence to confirm the NWB would hold an
  in-person technical meeting and pre-hearing conference
  for the file on June 6 and 7, 2019, in Kugluktuk.
       June 6 and 7, 2019, NWB hosted the technical
  meeting and pre-hearing conference in the closest
  community of Kugluktuk, Nunavut.
       June 18, 2019, NWB issued a pre-hearing conference
  decision in respect of the application, providing a
  list of commitments, timelines for the submission of
  additional documentation, a list of issues to be
  considered at this public hearing, and a tentative
  timeline for this in-person public hearing and
  Community Session.
       On November 8, 2019, NWB issued an update and
  formal notice of this public hearing as required under
  the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal
  Act.
       January 8, 2020, NWB issued a public hearing
  update correspondence with draft agendas for this
  public hearing and Community Session.
       January 13, 2020, NWB distributed the final agenda
  for this public hearing and Community Session.
       Complete details of all submissions received in
  relation to the application and key procedural steps
  are available on the NWB FTP site.  If you need any
  assistance finding or reviewing any of the
  documentation filed on the site, please check with our
  manager of licencing, Richard Dwyer, at the table, and
  he will help you get access to the documents.
       I will now move on to a list of issues to be
  addressed at this hearing, as identified during the
  technical meeting and pre-hearing conference for this
  file:  Terms of renewed licence, initially requests
  seven years, which will cover a period of active
  closure and reclamation for approximately two years,
  and the first five years of post-closure monitoring,
  updated subsequently to 12 years.
       Water-use requirement:  Increased during active
  closure and reclamation; reduction over the course of
  term.
       Waste disposal, including the following waste
  types:  Hazardous waste, waste rock with elevated
  arsenic content, petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated
  soil, asbestos, surface infrastructure and on-site
  equipment.
       Tailing and waste rock:  Covered design for waste
  rock storage dome; acid rock drainage and metal
  leaching potential; water management: potential for
  waste rock contact water, potential for seepage from
  waste rock, potential for seepage from TCA.
       Amendments to terms and conditions:  Discussion of
  the draft water licence framework proposed by LMI;
  changed to reflect change in status of the site from
  temporary care and maintenance to permanent closure and
  reclamation; amendments to reflect activities completed
  under the existing licence and progressive reclamation
  that has taken place in 2019; amendments to reflect
  post-closure environmental and site condition, for
  example, change to monitoring and reporting
  frequencies.
       Management plans and reports:  Updates to plans,
  timing/approval of plans.
       Monitoring programs:  Plans for monitoring during
  active closure and reclamation through to mine closure;
  post-closure monitoring requirement, including how long
  monitoring should continue.
       Closure and reclamation planning:  Additional
  studies/analysis (acid rock drainage and metal
  leaching, geochemical and pathways); Human Health
  Ecological Risk Assessment; climate change
  models/scenarios and potential effects on closure and
  reclamation; geotechnical stability and erosion
  control; timing, phase, and scheduling; final closure
  and reclamation plan.
       Reclamation security cost estimate:  Update to
  total cost estimate to reflect updated final closure
  and reclamation planning; mechanism for and agreements
  about the progressive release of security to allow for
  periodic reduction in security over the terms of the
  licence to reflect progressive reclamation and
  completeness -- completion of site remediation.
       So now that I have given you the background to the
  renewal and amendment application we will be discussing
  throughout this public hearing and Community Session, I
  would like to turn to Item 4 on the agenda , the
  introduction of the Applicants and Intervenors
  participating in this public hearing.
       I will now ask that the Applicants, LMI, introduce
  their representatives.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis here.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.
       On behalf of Lupin Mines Incorporated and Mandalay
  Resources Corporation, I would like to thank you and
  the panel members for the opportunity to introduce you,
  as well as the public and parties participating in this
  important hearing, to the members of the Lupin Mine
  team.  As I introduce each member, I would ask each to
  acknowledge the Board.  I will begin with the core LMI
  and Mandalay representatives.
       My name is Karyn Lewis, and I'm the project
  manager for the Lupin Mine.  With me today, I have
  Belinda Labatte, chief development officer from
  Mandalay Resources and director of LMI.
  MS. LABATTE:             Good morning, Mr. Chair and
  Board.
  MS. LEWIS:               Now, supporting LMI's team, we
  have legal counsel, Christine Kowbel, partner at Lawson
  Lundell, as well as several technical consultants,
  including Dave Hohnstein, regulatory advisor for Lupin
  Mines.
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thank you, Karyn.  Thanks to
  the Chair.
  MS. LEWIS:               Ken Bocking, principal,
  geotechnical engineer with Golder.
  MR. BOCKING:             Thank you.  Good morning.
  MS. LEWIS:               Kenny Ruptash, vice president
  projects at Nahanni Construction; and from Stantec, we
  have Jim McKinley, senior hydrogeologist; Sara Wilkins,
  project manager and professional hydrogeologist; and
  Alvin Tong, senior geotechnical engineer.
       And, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and be advised I
  will be filing with the Board CVs for our consultants
  for the Public Registry.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant.
       I will now go to local associations and
  representatives and intervening parties to introduce
  the people who will be representing them here today.
  We'll start with Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs, CIRNAC.
  MR. POITRAS:             Press the little mouth on
  there.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Okay.  Yes.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Thank you so much,
  Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity for us to participate
  in this public hearing.  My name is Godwin Okonkwo, and
  I'm manager of water resources with the
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada,
  also known as "CIRNAC".
       With me here is a colleague of mine, Noah Noah.
  He's of the lands division of CIRNAC, and then also
  with me here is Gerd Wiatzka with Arcadis.  He's a
  consultant that's representing us as well.
       On the phone, I have Spencer Dewar, who's director
  resource management, and Dale Kohlenberg, who is from
  the Department of Justice.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, CIRNAC.
       And then Environment and Climate Change Canada.
  MS. WALKER:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  We're
  happy to be here and participate, have the opportunity
  to participate.
       My name is Eva Walker.  I'm a senior environmental
  assessment coordinator with Environment and Climate
  Change Canada.  With me today, I have Anne Wilson, who
  is our lead with water quality; and on the phone, I
  will have Emma Watson, who is with climate services.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, ECCC.  I'll have to
  be able to say that clearly after from now on.
       Okay.  And then is there any other Intervenors who
  would like to speak, please identify yourself and
  introduce your representatives, if there are any.
       Okay.  I take that there's none here.
       It is our tradition to give respect to our Elders;
  therefore, at any time during the proceeding, an Elder
  may speak about the application that is before the
  Board.  I just ask that any Elder wanting to speak
  about the application wait until the Board Staff can
  get you a microphone so that we can ensure we have a
  complete record of what you have to say.
       Are there any members of the general public who
  would like to identify themselves and make a formal
  request to speak to the Board during this public
  hearing?
       I also want to mention that any community member
  who wishes to ask questions or provide comments to the
  Board about this application will also have an
  opportunity to do so tonight during the Community
  Session starting at 7, unless we get some housekeeping
  for that, we're good.  We'll notify that.
       Are there any representatives from agencies,
  associations, et cetera, who have not submitted
  interventions but would like to speak?
       I now turn to identification of any motions or any
  objection to the application that is before the Board.
  Is there any?
       Okay.  I take that there's none.  Seeing none, we
  will now proceed with Item 8 of the agenda, the
  presentation by the Applicant.
       The Applicant is requested -- okay.  Go ahead.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, we thought that we would just take a
  break so that I can get all my exhibits organized for
  the next section and also so that I can get my Bible
  over to the witnesses.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Okay.  One of the panel members wants to have a
  quick break before you're proceeding on that.  Okay,
  take a short break.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  We can continue on from
  the break.
       So, the Applicant, if you're all set to go, you
  may go ahead.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn speaking, Mr. Chairman.
       Once again, I would like to take the opportunity
  to thank you and the panel members for the opportunity
  to present our application.
  THE CHAIR:               Excuse me.  I think Teresa --
  MS. LEWIS:               Oh, sorry --
  THE CHAIR:               -- our legal counsel, will
  have you sworn in.
  MS. LEWIS:               I thought they said us.
  Sorry.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah.  Yeah.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  We're
  not situated well, so we -- I'm not within his sight
  line, and I didn't want to throw anything.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.
       So there are several procedural matters that I
  have, Mr. Chair.  The first being that there are 11
  exhibits that have been provided to us by LMI to
  support their presentation and participation here
  today, including several materials that were already
  filed electronically with the Board, but have been
  provided in hard copy for the convenience of the
  parties, but also so that the exhibits can be reflected
  when someone is looking at the transcript, they're able
  to conveniently and easily locate the materials that
  are being referenced that have already been filed on
  the Public Registry.
       So I have -- those materials include the
  PowerPoint presentation that will be presented by LMI
  shortly, an English, French, Inukitut, and Inuinnaqtun
  copies of the executive summary of the closure plan
  that has already been filed with the Board, but is
  being provided for convenience of the parties.
       I also have technical memos from Stantec, from
  Alvin Tong, dated January 10th, 2020, and the subject
  matter is "Supporting Information For the Dam Stability
  and Cover Design".
       I also have a technical memorandum that, again,
  was filed on the Public Registry, but is being provided
  in hard copy for the convenience of the parties.  It is
  dated January 10th, 2020, from Ken Bocking.  The
  subject matter is "Supporting Information to the
  Conceptual Design for the Waste Rock Dome at Lupin
  Mine".
       I also have another technical memo that was filed
  with the Board dated January 9th, 2020, from Alvin Tong
  at Stantec Consulting.  The reference is "Supporting
  Information to the Contingency Contaminants Management
  Decision Matrix".
       And, finally, Mr. Chair, I have copies of the CVs,
  which have not been previously filed with the Board,
  for Jim McKinley, for Alvin Tong, and for Ken Bocking.
       So those are the 11 hard-copy exhibits that I
  propose to file, and I would just like to confirm with
  legal counsel for LMI that those are the materials in
  support of the presentation that are required to be
  filed as exhibits.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines Incorporated.
       Yes, I confirm those are the exhibits that -- that
  Lupin Mines has provided to the Board.  I also wanted
  to note that we have one more expert that I have not
  yet provided a 'C' -- a resume for, and that is our
  expert Sara Wilkins.  We will be providing an
  electronic copy to the Board this morning, but there
  was not a paper copy available at the time the hearing
  started this morning.  My apologies, Mr. Chair.
       Thank you.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       So duly noted.  We will file that in electronic
  form, and any parties here who wish to see a copy of
  that electronic filing, I'm assuming that you will be
  circulating it to all the parties that are here as
  well.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       We confirm we will -- we'll copy Environment
  Canada and Crown-Indigenous Northern Relations Canada
  on that email.
       Thank you.
       EXHIBIT 1 - Hard Copy, PowerPoint
       Presentation, Lupin Mine Application for
       Renewal and Amendment of Licence 2AM-LUP1520,
       Mandalay Resources (English and Inuinnaqtun)
       EXHIBIT 2 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary
       Lupin Mine Final Closure and Reclamation Plan
       (English)
       EXHIBIT 3 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary
       Lupin Mine Final Closure and Reclamation Plan
       (Inuktitut)
       EXHIBIT 4 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary
       Lupin Mine Final Closure and Reclamation Plan
       (Inuinnaqtun)
       EXHIBIT 5 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary
       Lupin Mine Final Closure and Reclamation Plan
       (French)
       EXHIBIT 6 - Hard Copy, Technical Memo From
       Alvin Tong (Stantec Consulting) To Karyn
       Lewis (Lupin Mine Incorporated) Dated January
       9, 2020, Reference: Supporting Information to
       the Contingency Contaminants Management
       Decision Matrix (English)
       EXHIBIT 7 - Hard Copy, Technical Memo From
       Alvin Tong (Stantec Consulting) To Karyn
       Lewis (Lupin Mine Incorporated) Dated January
       10, 2020, Reference: Supporting Information
       for the Dam Stability and Cover Design
       (English)
       EXHIBIT 8 - Hard Copy, Technical Memo From
       Ken Bocking (Golder Associates) To Karyn
       Lewis (Lupin Mine Incorporated) Dated January
       10, 2020, Reference:  Supporting Information
       to the Conceptual Design for the Waste Rock
       "Dome" at Lupin Mine (English)
       EXHIBIT 9 - Hard Copy, Resumé of Ken Bocking,
       Golder Associates Ltd. (English)
       EXHIBIT 10 - Hard Copy, Resumé of Jim
       McKinley, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (English)
       EXHIBIT 11 - Hard Copy, Resumé of Alvin Tong,
       Stantec Consulting Ltd. (English)
       EXHIBIT 12 - Electronic Copy, Resumé of Sara
       Wilkins, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (English)
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, I would now like to have the panel of
  witnesses for LMI who will be making presentations
  today affirmed or sworn in.  It's my understanding that
  they all have asked to be affirmed, so if I can have
  all the witnesses state and spell your name for the
  record, please.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, K-A-R-Y-N,
  "Lewis", L-E-W-I-S.
  MS. LABATTE:             Belinda Labatte,
  B-E-L-I-N-D-A, "Labatte", L-A-B-A-T-T-E.
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair.  David
  Hohnstein, D-A-V-I-D H-O-H-N-S-T-E-I-N.
  MR. BOCKING:             Mr. Chair, I'm Ken Bocking,
  K-E-N, and "Bocking" is B-O-C-K-I-N-G.
  MS. WILKINS:             Good morning.  Thank you.
  Sara Wilkins, S-A-R-A, last name "Wilkins",
  W-I-L-K-I-N-S.  Thank you.
  MR. TONG:                Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Alvin
  Tong, A-L-V-I-N T-O-N-G.
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, J-I-M,
  "McKinley", M-C-K-I-N-L-E-Y.
  MR. RUPTASH:             And Kenneth Ruptash,
  K-E-N-N-E-T-H, last name R-U-P-T-A-S-H.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
  KARYN LEWIS, BELINDA LABATTE, DAVID HOHNSTEIN, KEN
  BOCKING, SARA WILKINS, ALVIN TONG, JIM MCKINLEY,
  KENNETH RUPTASH, Affirmed
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Those are all my procedural
  matters.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       So, Applicant, you may go ahead with your
  presentation, but I heard that your presentation will
  be at least more than an hour for sure, so just keeping
  in mind that whenever we, the panel, or somebody needs
  a break, so I'll call it right away.
       Thank you.
  Presentation by Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MS. LEWIS:               Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Karyn
  Lewis speaking.
       Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to take the
  opportunity to thank giving the panel members for the
  opportunity to present our application for
  renewal/amendment of our current Type "A" Water Licence
  2AM-LUP1520 to support final closure and reclamation of
  the Lupin mine site.
       I would also like to thank the community of
  Kugluktuk as well as the other Kitikmeot communities
  and all parties that have expressed interest in our
  project throughout the regulatory processes.
       Mr. Chairman, LMI has provided copies of our
  presentation in hard copy for you and the panel members
  as well as the public.
       Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn it over to Dave
  Hohnstein to go through our presentation.
       Thank you.
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
  thanks, Karyn.
       Good morning, everybody, and much appreciated that
  everybody could make it here today.  We had a little
  bit of trouble getting in yesterday, but managed to get
  in a little -- a little later than planned, so
  hopefully the rest of the week goes -- goes well here.
       Karyn has asked me to do the presentation on
  behalf of LMI on their water licence application for
  renewal and amendment of the current licence and
  looking to achieve, I guess, final closure of the mine
  site and, along with that, approval of the final
  closure and reclamation plan.
       So what we've done here is we've put together a
  fairly lengthy presentation.  The first half of it goes
  through, you know, the current status of the mine site,
  what's happened during the last few years at Lupin, and
  plans for the future here in the next two years or so
  during closure activities.
       So on our slides here, we've got, of course, the
  forward-looking statement from the -- from the company,
  and that's available on hard copy.  I'll let everybody
  read that at their own leisure.
       The Lupin mine site, we've got a current photo on
  the screen from, I think it was, July 2019, and it's a
  fairly -- a fairly recent photo.  Most of the photos
  I've got in the presentation are from this last summer
  season, and you can still see a lot of the
  infrastructure on the -- on the photo, the main mine
  site, the fuel tank farms, the sewage lakes off to the
  right-hand side, and the tailings line access road.
       So it has been mentioned previously, the mine site
  is located approximately 285 kilometres southeast of
  Kugluktuk, and it's only been accessible by air and
  winter road throughout its entire mine life, including
  during the initial construction back in late '78 to
  1980.  The mine has been in operation from 1982 through
  to 2005 with two short closure periods during that
  time.  The mine site is currently opened -- or owned by
  Lupin Mines Incorporated, which is a wholly owned
  indirect subsidiary of Mandalay Resources Corporation.
       The interim closure and reclamation plan submitted
  by LMI was approved by the Nunavut Water Board in July
  of 2018.  So over the last number of years, LMI has
  carried out progressive reclamation under this and
  previously approved plans since the initial ownership
  of the property in 2011, which was through Elgin Mining
  and now through Mandalay Resources.
       The final closure and reclamation plan was
  submitted, along with the application, in July of 2018
  with an application for amendment and renewal of the
  current licence.  The application and final closure and
  reclamation plan completeness review and technical
  review has been completed, and LMI -- or in addition to
  the application, LMI provided notice, in January of
  2019, to Environment Canada -- Environment and Climate
  Change Canada with respect to the Metal and Diamond
  Mines Effluent Regulations seeking closed mine status.
       I did forget to mention at the start, we apologize
  for not being able to get the full presentation
  translated.  We've used previously translated slides
  from a previous presentation back at the technical
  meeting, so there are empty spaces in the presentation
  where there would have been translations.
       So the technical meeting and pre-hearing
  conference took place in Kugluktuk June 6th to 7 of
  this past year.  A list of 15 commitments was provided
  with the decision from the Board to be addressed and
  submitted prior to the public hearing.
       All 15 commitments were completed and provided to
  the NWB prior to or on their respective dates.  Most
  commitments considered -- have been considered
  resolved, with the exception of the security cost
  estimate and framework for progressive release of
  security, and these discussions have been taking place
  since the technical meeting and since submissions back
  in November.  LMI anticipates that all commitments will
  be resolved prior to or at the public hearing.
       So during 2019 and to fill -- fulfill commitments
  that were generated from the technical meeting in June,
  bathymetric surveys of Ponds 1, 2, and Cells 4 and 5
  were completed.  For Commitment Number 10, test pits in
  the covered cells and standpipe water levels and water
  quality information was collected.  A one-time
  geophysical survey of two selected dams, Dam 3D and
  Dam 4, were completed by Aurora Geosciences Limited for
  Stantec.  There were geotechnical assessments carried
  out, and LMI completed a Human Health and Ecological
  Risk Assessment through Golder Associates.
       Some site photographs from this last summer's
  work, the upper-left photograph shows bathymetry work
  being carried out in Cell 4, and the photograph on
  the -- on the right shows one of the test pits that was
  done in Cell Number 1 in completion of Commitment
  Number 10.
       And just as a note, this cell was covered in 1995,
  so it's been 25 years, covered in -- in Cell 1, and the
  wording on the slide's a little hard to read, but the
  report that was generated from Stantec indicates that
  there was thawed cover material for about a metre above
  the tailings.  There was a thin layer of frozen
  material, and the actual tailings that was uncovered
  below the -- below the esker cover material was showing
  no oxidation and no actual, you know, physical changes
  since covering took place 25 years ago, so that
  information is all contained in the response to
  Commitment Number 10.
       So under care and maintenance and general
  operations that took place, discharge of the water from
  the Lower Sewage Lake to the environment that was
  carried out in June of 2019 with water quality
  monitoring and flow measurement taking place, and the
  company completed -- or had completed, through Golder
  Association -- Associates, the Phase 6 or final
  environmental effects monitoring study under the Metal
  and Diamond Mines Effluent Monitoring Regulations.
  That report, I believe, is due to be submitted sometime
  within or before three years following the completion
  of the study, so there will be a draft report done up
  within the next year, reviewed, and then finally
  submitted through to Environment and Climate Change
  Canada.
       The company carried out transfer of water, water
  management in the tailings on containment area,
  transfer of water from Cell 3 to Cell 4, syphoning of
  water from Pond 1 to Pond 2, and pumping of water from
  Cell 5 to Pond 1.  This was all done to manage the
  water levels within the tailings pond in anticipation
  of discharge in 2020.
       So, again, some more photographs from this last
  summer's work.  The upper left is the -- showing the
  intake location of the syphons for discharge from the
  Lower Sewage sewage Lake.  The lower centre is a
  photograph of active pumping from Cell 5 to Pond Number
  1, and the right-hand photo is syphoning of water from
  Cell 3, which is on the right side, over to Cell 4, a
  little bit out of the photograph.
       In addition to the work at the TCA with regards to
  water management, pumping of water from the West Zone
  Pit Number 2 to Stope Number 1 occurred at the mine
  site.  Some physical work that was done at the tailings
  containment area included repairs to the KDam crest due
  to erosion, excavated a drainage swale along Cell
  Number 3 and KDam to control and prevent further
  erosion of the downstream face of KDam.  The gate
  culvert which controls water flow from Cell Number 4
  through to Pond 1 was removed and a coffer dam
  installed to contain water.
       And, again, some photos of the actual work taking
  place.  The upper left photo is active repair, the
  downstream slope of KDam, some erosion areas on the
  crest of the dam.  The right-hand photo is the
  excavation of the -- the drainage swale along Cell
  Number 3 and KDam to control runoff and prevent the
  erosion that took place on the downstream slope, and
  the centre lower photograph is a photograph of the
  bermed area, the coffer dam around the gated culvert.
  It's not quite visible there, but the culvert is on the
  right-hand side here with the berm containing the water
  in Cell 4.
       So continuing on with the Lupin Mine status, we've
  included a satellite view of the Lupin mine site, and
  one of the things, I think, that should be noted on
  this photograph, it'll be mentioned a number of times
  during the -- during the presentation, but the areas of
  the mine site where mining had occurred, and there's
  openings at the surface, include the west zone opened
  crown pillar and the centre zone opened crown pillar.
  The east zone, which was mined out in early 2000s, has
  already been covered in and reclaimed, and that was
  done prior to the final closure of the site back in
  2005.
       So, again, just the general arrangement of the
  mine site.  On the left-hand side, here's a fuel tank
  farm, the main mill area, the mine headframe, and some
  of the -- some of the accommodation complexes, and
  actually, this photograph includes a bit of the
  airstrip for access to the Lupin Mine.
       So looking at the application highlights, some of
  the things that Lupin Mines Incorporated was looking
  for in the new licence, the main points were,
  initially, the application included a request for a
  seven-year licence; however, following the technical
  meetings and the pre-hearing conference report
  decision, LMI has since confirmed -- LMI has since
  confirmed a request for a licence term of 12 years to
  coincide with full closure activities, and I apologize,
  this number here should have been changed to the first
  10 years of post-closure monitoring, and that 12-year
  term allows for the time required for submission for an
  application for renewal of that licence and the time
  needed to review the application and go through the
  licence renewal process.
       The water requirements for the -- for the site
  during closure activities and then following care and
  maintenance, a request has been included for total
  water-use increase.  The original application indicated
  a rate per day and discussions at the technical
  meetings indicated that keeping the units consistent
  would be more preferable, so the original rate of, I
  think it was, 685 cubic metres a day was converted over
  to 250 cubic -- 250,000 cubic metres per year, and that
  request would be for the first two years for closure
  activities, and then the following ten years would be
  limited to 5,000 cubic metres per year during
  post-closure monitoring and maintenance.
       In addition to the water quantity request, Lupin
  Mines has included an additional request for additional
  water sources.  Rather than all the water being
  required to come from Contwoyto Lake, they've included
  a request for minimal water use from water sources
  along the access roads to allow for industrial water
  use and water use for dust control on the roads.
  Rather than having to haul water from Contwoyto Lake
  all the way out to tailings area where a lot of the
  work is being carried out, they can utilize water
  sources in and around the tailings area.
       So along with these requests, there's been a
  request for a review of the licence terms and
  conditions to better structure the licence and
  represent the closure status of the mine and activities
  that would be taking place over the next licence term.
  And then the final request was with the submission of
  the 2018 final closure plan, the approval of that plan
  and the approval for moving ahead with final closure
  activities.
       So just a -- just a quick recap of the technical
  meeting/pre-hearing conference decision, the technical
  meetings, as was mentioned, took place in June of 2019,
  and the list of commitments that was developed through
  that technical meeting, as well as -- as well of a list
  of issues was conveyed to all parties in the
  pre-hearing conference decision report.
       I believe the issues will be -- will be discussed
  and addressed through the public hearing agenda, and
  with regards to commitments, LMI's pleased to report
  that all the commitments listed in Appendix D of the
  decision have been completed and submitted either prior
  to or by the dates set out in advance of the public
  hearing.  With the exception of a few minor items to be
  dealt with at this public hearing, which include the
  issue of security, cost estimate, and the security
  framework for progressive release of security, LMI
  considers the commitments fulfilled and issues
  resolved.
       There have been a few items that were discussed in
  the last few days, including yesterday evening, and I
  believe those will be discussed later on during this
  public hearing agenda.
       So for the Lupin mine closure, the final closure
  and reclamation plan has been developed and submitted,
  and included on this slide here are a couple of
  photographs.  The one on the left is the current or
  most recent mine-site status, so you've got the mine
  site connected to the tailings area via road, and then
  the tailings containment area, which are the two main
  components of the closure plan, so you've currently got
  water-containing areas Pond Number 2, Pond Number 1,
  and Cell Number 4 down in the lower part here.
  Currently through progressive reclamation, there's
  several cells within the tailings containment area that
  have been covered:  Cell Number 1 and 2 and Cell Number
  5.  Cell Number 5 is near completely covered.  There's
  a small water-containing area just next to the
  containment dam, Dam M, and then Cell Number 3 is
  considerably covered with a small little
  water-collection area down in the far lower-right here.
       So these waters all are collected.  They transfer
  through to Pond Number 1.  Pond Number 2, treatment
  takes place, and then it's discharged to the
  environment when required.
       So for final closure, this is a -- I guess, a
  conceptual drawing that's been digitally changed to
  show what the mine site and tailings area may look like
  upon final closure.  So you've got a small
  water-retaining natural drainage area.  The main
  tailings cell areas have been covered, and natural
  water flow has been allowed to take place through Pond
  Number 1, through the original Pond Number 2 area, and
  then out to the environment.
       For the mine site, the -- all the mine buildings,
  infrastructure, everything has been removed, disposed
  of either in the open crown pillars or to a demolition
  materials landfill that's going to -- that's proposed
  to be located next to the upper sewage pond, and then
  all the waste rock, mined rock, and everything has been
  consolidated and covered with one metre of esker
  material with grading to allow drainage in certain
  areas to allow for runoff.
       So the final closure and reclamation plan is
  fairly comprehensive.  What we'd like to highlight here
  is mainly the permanent closure and reclamation
  activities.
       So within the progressive reclamation activities,
  there's a number of items that have to be addressed:
  The underground mine, the tailings impoundment area,
  the issue of a rock pile being developed at the mine
  site, dealing with chemicals and contaminated soils,
  dismantling/demolition of buildings and removal of
  equipment, the overall capital expenditures and
  short-term water treatment and management for the site,
  overall interim care and maintenance for long-term
  monitoring maintenance of the reclaimed site, and,
  again, post-closure monitoring, and then the
  mobilization of equipment into the site and demob of
  equipment from the site once all the reclamation
  activities have been completed.
       So with regards to the underground mine, the
  portal and mine openings will be closed off.  The crown
  pillar, the proposal is, if needed, the crown pillar
  will be blasted open.  Right now, it ranges from two to
  five metres opening or so at surface, so that area --
  that area will be blasted, and it'll be blasted down
  into the actual mine openings below to allow opening on
  the surface that will allow for disposal of all the
  mine -- mine-site infrastructure, then backfill and
  reclaim of the open stopes.
       So right here is a photo of the -- from 2018,
  actually, the open crown pillar at the -- at the centre
  zone, and the photo on the right is the -- the portal
  opening, which will be closed off and blocked off with
  a -- with an engineered seal.
       And, again, from 2018, the previous photo
  showed that water was filling the opening here.
  There's a picture of part of the crown pillar that's --
  or for the centre zone that you can see it's open, open
  to depth.  The photo on the right is a -- there's a
  historical photo from 2002 showing where the east zone
  crown pillar was mined out, backfilled, and eventually
  covered with esker material and graded.
       So if you can imagine, once all the buildings are
  gone, all the -- all the waste rock and materials are
  collectively moved to the centre of the mine site, the
  final closure of the mine site will look similar to the
  east zone crown here, which will be covered with one
  metre of esker material.
       The tailings impoundment area, so the current
  plan, and through studies that were done in summer of
  2019, it's been determined that the slopes on the
  Pond 2 side of MDam and KDam will be flattened to
  reduce the slope slightly and allow better stability of
  those dam slopes.
       A point to make clear here is that on final
  closure, once water's been discharged from the tailings
  area, and the water level's lowered to the maximum --
  or the minimum level they can be, there will actually
  be no water up against any of the dams that are in the
  tailings area, so the dam structures will be only
  containing the solid tailings material that's been
  deposited over the years.
       So there will -- there's required tailings
  pipeline removal to take place.  Approximately 4 --
  4,000 metres cubed of pipeline was removed in 2018 and
  about 4,500 metres is remaining to be removed.
       The syphon infrastructure at the tailings area
  will need to be removed and disposed of, and then there
  will be construction or excavation of spillways at
  Dam 1a and the JDam to allow for natural drainage of
  the area.
       So, again, an overview of the tailings impoundment
  area, we've got Cells 1 and 2, Cell 3, and Cell 5,
  partially covered Cell 5, so there's an area to the
  southwest here that still needs to be covered, a small
  area in the lower right corner of Cell 3 that remains
  to be covered, and then the water management of the
  tailings ponds that will need to be dealt with in the
  upcoming open-water season here in 2020.  So the plan
  this summer will be to treat the waters within the full
  tailings area and discharged through the syphoned
  infrastructure and discharged to the environment.
       So a few closer looks at the tailings area here.
  This is Pond 2 on the right-hand side, the main MDam
  which contains Cell 5, and MDam which contains a little
  area of exposed tailings in the corner here.  These
  areas will all be covered up during final closure.
       The lower photo here, a little -- a little hard to
  see with this lighting here, but it's Cell -- Cell 5,
  just showing some of the exposed tailings that remains
  to be covered and esker material further back here
  covering the main portion of Cell 5; and the upper
  photo here is Cell 3 on the -- on the left, Cell 4 on
  the right.  During regular water management, water's
  pumped or syphoned from Cell 3 over the small dam here
  into Cell 4, which naturally flows over to Pond Number
  1.
       So there's -- there's a couple of historical
  photos here from 2002, and the main reason for
  including these is that these show water levels that
  will be relatively close to what the final closure
  situation will be when the water's completely -- or as
  completely removed from the tailings area as physically
  can be done with the natural ground elevations, so the
  photo on the left here shows the Dam 1a and syphons,
  and it's hard to see in the photo, but there's the
  intakes of the syphons that are showing just near the
  water level there, so that's physically the furthest
  the water level can be drawn down; and then at the same
  time, a photo on the right showing the water level of
  Pond 2 and the KDam, which it -- obviously in the
  photo, once the water level is drawn down in Pond 2,
  that there will be no water up against the toe of the
  dam to, you know, influence any erosion.
       The work done this summer identified that the
  slope of this dam needs to be flattened out slightly to
  allow for better stability and limit any possible
  erosion of that, that embankment.
       So the rock pile item is referring to the -- to
  the mine site, and as mentioned before, all the
  buildings, infrastructure will be demolished, removed
  from the mine site, and disposed of either in the open
  stopes or the demolition landfill that's proposed.
       So approximately 191 cubic metres of rock material
  at the mine site will be consolidated together to limit
  the total area disturbed and having to be reclaimed.
  There will be a soil cover of approximately 300,000
  square metres, and a contour area of rock left in place
  roughly about the same, so same square metres.
       Again, the photo on the left is showing the opened
  crown pillar area where some of the demolition waste
  will be disposed of, and the photo on the right is
  including waste rock piles and showing where the
  previous Lupin baseball field used to -- used to lay,
  which will be -- all this material would be removed and
  consolidated in one main area.
       So chemicals and contaminated soils, the plan is
  to decontaminate removal of all oil, fuel, glycol
  systems.  A large amount of this work was carried out
  in 2018 during the summer and work program.  All tanks
  not in use outside the main tank -- tank farm have been
  cleaned and signed off by a professional engineer.
  There's going to be removal of asbestos-containing
  materials and disposed of as per guidelines and
  Environment and Climate Change Canada recommendations.
       Removal of hazardous materials, throughout 2015
  through to 2018, there's been a lot of waste removal
  from the site, waste oils, fuels, batteries, machine
  shop paints, solvents.  The majority of these wastes
  have already been collected and removed from the site.
  Lab reagents have been removed in 2016, '17, and '18,
  and item at -- items currently at the site will be
  required to be removed during final closure activities.
       The plan for contaminated soils, and that's
  generally petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils,
  will be collected, removed, and -- collected, removed,
  and deposited or -- or disposed of in the opened crown
  pillar.
       For all buildings, equipment, and infrastructure,
  I won't go through the list here.  Basically, it lists
  off all the major buildings and infrastructure at the
  main mine site, so all these facilities will be
  removed, taken down, and disposed of in either the
  opened crown pillars or the demolition waste landfill.
       A few photos from the mine site, just to have
  everybody familiar with some of the terminology, the
  headframe, so access for the -- for the shaft and
  access to the mine, warehouse, engineering offices,
  shops, and the like, the main fuel tank farm, and
  probably one of the largest buildings infrastructure
  on-site is the mill building, which housed all the
  milling, crushing, and processing of ore
  infrastructure.
       Another picture of some of the -- some of the
  equipment at the site, the powerhouse.  I believe
  there's upwards of ten -- ten generators at the -- at
  the site, diesel generators, and another picture of the
  mills, the grinding area of the mines -- of the mill.
       So there's, proposed, a landfill for the
  demolition waste, reclaiming of approximately 12
  kilometres of roads, access roads for the mine site,
  and one of the other main activities is to grade and
  contour the main esker -- esker source area out at
  Fingers Lake.
       The photo's a little -- a little dark, but the
  main access road from the mine site to the tailings
  area is along this side here, and mine site on the
  crest of the hill with the Upper Sewage Lake on the
  right-hand side here, so the proposed location for the
  demolition landfill site is just off the side of this
  hill, working its way down to the Upper Sewage Lake,
  which, incidentally, will be drained on closure, so the
  water levels will be minimal in this area here and the
  likelihood of some of this area having to be covered
  up, as well, with the -- with the waste landfill.
       Short-term water treatment and management, so
  there will be a decommissioning of the freshwater
  supply and pumphouse, the 6-inch water supply line, and
  then for ongoing water management at the -- at the
  tailings area, further water treatment during 2020, and
  discharged to the environment.
       Interim care and maintenance, so during 2019, LMI
  carried out a number of activities.  The -- as
  mentioned earlier, the final EEM study under the Metal
  and Diamond Mines Effluent Regulations took place in
  August of 2019.  There were geotechnical and
  geophysical surveys that took place during the summer,
  the test pitting of the covered tailings cells, as
  mentioned earlier for one of the commitments.  Overall
  general water management to the tailing -- tailings
  area took place, and that's mostly water moving around,
  making sure there's going to be volume available,
  storage volume available for spring freshet in 2020.
       There was maintenance that took place for repairs
  of the KDam in Cell Number 4 divider dike.  Water
  quality monitoring, there was a number of
  water-monitoring programs that took place in
  anticipation of treatment and release for next year,
  and the sewage lakes' facility was discharged to allow
  for capacity over the spring freshet in 2020.
       Some items on post-closure monitoring and
  maintenance under the final closure plan, annual
  geotechnical studies will take place during the initial
  terms of the licence, or years of the licence.  Regular
  monitoring, including maintenance, and overall site
  water quality management or monitoring, which would
  take place under the water licence conditions.
       A few recent photos from last summer, just to show
  some of the reclamation work that has taken place over,
  you know, the last, I guess, 20 -- 20 years or so.
  This is a photo of Cell 1, and, you know, originally,
  when it was covered back in 1995 or so, it would have
  been bare esker material at that point, and you can see
  a lot of -- a lot of vegetation has naturally worked
  its way into the area.  A lot of small shrub growth,
  birch growth, that sort of thing.
       This is a fairly surprising area here.  This is
  Dam 3 along Cell -- Cell 1, and this is the -- this is
  an access road, and the area in between the two roads
  has nearly fully grown in with a little bit of
  vegetation along the access road.
       And this is another area of Cell 1 with some
  naturally standing water, and you can see a lot of
  the -- a lot of vegetation growth in and around the
  water's edge and throughout, throughout the covered
  cell area.
  THE CHAIR:               Before you continue on with
  your presentation, we need a short break before you go
  on to final closure requirements of your presentation.
  We'll take a five-minute break for now.
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thanks, Mr. Chair.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               We shall continue on with the
  presentation for Applicants.
       Okay.  Dave, go ahead.  Continue with your
  presentation.
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Again,
  David Hohnstein, Lupin Mines Incorporated.
       Continuing on with the -- with the closure
  presentation here, the last item there was mobilization
  and demob.
       So the plan currently is to bring additional
  equipment into the site in early 2020 on a planned
  winter road, and that would include equipment, some
  additional fuel, tools and equipment, so transportation
  and flights are planned to and from the site during
  operation, during the closure activities for supplies
  and manpower and so forth, and at the mine site, the
  accommodations area will be open for workers at the
  site, along with maintenance shops that are required
  for maintaining of equipment during the -- during
  activities.
       So as a -- as a historical photo here, I think
  this was in a framed picture hung at the Lupin mine
  site for quite some time.  I took a photograph of it
  last time I was at the site, and this is an actual
  photograph of the area prior to the mine site being
  constructed, so the actual portal going underground was
  started in front here, heading down underground.  The
  mine infrastructure was constructed on the top of the
  hill here, and you can see the one sewage lake in the
  background and the access roads throughout the initial
  site.
       Then, again, a little larger photograph of the
  conceptual closure of the -- of the mine site and
  tailings area, so all areas of -- that were used to
  deposit tailings will be covered with esker material.
  The natural drainage of the area will be allowed to
  take place.  Original Pond 1 and Pond 2 will naturally
  drain to the environment, and Cell 4 here will have a
  connection through the back here that naturally flows
  right now, but there's a control structure on Cell 4.
       The area on the far lower right here is the esker
  area where the material is acquired for covering of the
  tailings area and the mine site.
       So for two thousand, I have, nineteen here through
  to '22, Mandalay Resources has finalized the contract
  with Nahanni Construction Limited for all the closure
  and reclamation work at Lupin related to the final
  closure and reclamation plan.
       Prior to 2019 season, unfortunately, due to a
  delay in obtaining a return of security and some
  permitting, the care and maintenance program was
  continued on through 2019.  Some work, as mentioned,
  was carried out during the 2019 season by Nahanni.
  Mandalay anticipated having the final closure and
  reclamation plan renewal licence to be completed in the
  first quarter of 2020.
       So as mentioned, mobilization will start early in
  2020 via the winter road.  The full reclamation
  program, as updated during the NWB's final closure and
  reclamation licencing process, will take place during
  2020 through 2021, with the demobilization of equipment
  from site in 2022 on the winter road.
       A picture of the original Lupin manager cabin.
  Historically, for those who are unaware, this building
  was transported Echo Bay's original mine in -- at Port
  Radium for the owner of Echo Bay Mines at the time, and
  reconstructed at -- at Lupin.  The plans are to leave
  this building in place as long as possible to allow for
  accommodation of summer rotational staff during care
  and maintenance and monitoring activities through the
  licence term.
       So this is where I was going to take a break, but
  Mr. Chair beat me to it, so we'll continue on at the --
  at this point.  This is the second half of LMI's
  presentation where we planned to go through all the
  pre-hearing conference decision commitments and
  identify where submissions were made, where the further
  comments were addressed, and hopefully identify that
  the majority of the commitments have been met and have
  been resolved.
       So under the commitment list, Commitment Numbers 1
  and 7, the HHERA report, the Human Health Ecological
  Risk Assessment report, was completed by Golder
  Associates and submitted on October 15th, 2019.  In
  there, in final comments on the -- on the commitments,
  CIRNAC submitted comments, and their Comment Number 1
  included the need for an updated monitoring plan and
  comment that the HHERA should include the tailings
  containment area.
       LMI responded indicating that the post-closure
  monitoring plan has been committed to under Number 14
  and that the TCA was addressed separately through the
  ecological risk assessment submitted with the 2014
  renewal application, and LMI considered the item to be
  resolved.
       Commitment Number 2, the updated security estimate
  reclaim model, this was filed in -- on November 1st,
  2019, and additional comments were received from --
  from CIRNAC on December 6th.
       LMI provided additional details on the estimate
  and indicated that they were based on a signed contract
  with the contractor, which is a firm price for the work
  to be carried out and considered to be more accurate
  than an estimate -- the estimated unit rates of
  reclaim.
       I believe this and the item of the security
  framework are still being discussed with CIRNAC, and,
  you know, LMI anticipates the item to be resolved prior
  to the end of the hearing.
       Commitment Number 3 and 4, LMI was to review
  records and provide a historical data analysis with
  respect to ARD potential of tailings dams and roadways.
       This was submitted to the Water Board on August
  15th, 2019, and through comments received from CIRNAC,
  LMI provided a response in a memo dated August 14th
  evidencing that the historical data has been reviewed
  and that an accurate account of the ARD potential is
  reflected in the closure plan, and as such, there would
  be no requirement for further work under Commitment 4.
       Commitment Number 5 was to provide preliminary
  design level explanation of waste -- of the waste rock
  storage dome design, including typical cross-sections,
  seepage, topography, geochemistry, and storm-water
  draining estimates.  This was provided by LMI on
  October 15th, and CIRNAC provided comments December
  6th; and further to that, LMI provided a technical memo
  with typical cross-sections with a commitment to
  provide detailed grading plans and specifications in
  Quarter 1 of 2021.
       Post-closure impacts of any waste rock seeps are
  addressed in the HHERA and will be addressed in the
  ongoing long-term monitoring plans, and LMI considers
  this item to be resolved.
       Commitment Number 6, LMI provide geotechnical
  analysis to provide confirmation of long-term dam
  stability and erosion control.  This was filed by LMI
  on November 15th, 2019.  CIRNAC commented requesting
  LMI to provide more specific information on the
  location where embankment stabilization work would be
  carried out and design details.
       Following this, in LMI's final response of January
  3rd, LMI provided information that additional
  information on the slope stability and where resloping
  would apply included resloping of Dam K and Dam M as
  required.
       Commitment Number 6 response included conceptual
  drawing for surface drainage of Cells Number 3 and 5,
  as well as out -- outlooked structure cross-sections,
  and I believe there's some additional information that
  will be provided either prior to the end of the hearing
  or within the first term of the licence regarding some
  additional long sections that CIRNAC was discussing
  with LMI last night with regards to design of the
  drainage and erosion control.
       Commitment Number 7, LMI was to provide a
  geochemical source term and load model for seepage from
  the waste rock dome.  CIRNAC commented that the
  documentation provided by LMI is a seepage model,
  rather than a source term model; however, CIRNAC is
  satisfied with the response conditional on seepage
  samples being collected and modelling updated.
       LMI indicated in their response January 3rd that
  they're committed to providing the post-closure
  monitoring plan for the site and the area, which would
  include this information.  LMI considered this item to
  be resolved.
       Commitment Number 8, a decision matrix tree that
  determines how exposed tailings will be handled on a
  case-by-case basis when lowering the water level in the
  tailings containment area.  This was filed by LMI
  October 15th, and CIRNAC responded with their Comment
  Number 8 in their December 6 response.
       LMI has provided, with its final submission, a
  revised contingency containment contaminants management
  decision matrix, and I believe through further
  discussions yesterday evening, that this will be
  updated and further information provided prior to the
  end of the hearing.
       Commitment Number 9, joint submission on framework
  for the progressive release of security, as I mentioned
  earlier under the closure cost estimate, these
  discussions are ongoing, and LMI is committed to work
  with CIRNAC and provide final information prior to the
  end of the hearing.
       Moving on to some of the commitments that were
  developed and requested by Environment and Climate
  Change Canada.  Commitment Number 10 was to provide a
  one-time inspection or test pitting to ground-truth the
  status of cover of nearby one of the installed
  standpipes.
       ECCC commented in their final submission that the
  request for field investigations have been resolved and
  recommends that the details of TCA monitoring be
  included in a post-closure monitoring plan.  LMI and
  ECC [sic], I believe, consider this item to be
  resolved.
       Commitments Number 11 and 12, LMI conduct a
  one-time geophysical survey along two selected dams to
  confirm the condition of frozen cores.  ECCC, in their
  final submission, commented that the commitment made
  has provided the required information regarding the
  dams and that further analysis was done on slope
  stability.  They also recommended that ongoing
  monitoring of the dams and that dam stability
  monitoring be included in the post-closure monitoring
  plan, and LMI has committed to this and considers this
  item to be resolved.
       Commitment Number 13, climate change modelling,
  LMI to use a range of emission scenarios, low to high
  future forcing [phonetic], from multiple climate models
  and considering multiple parameters for consideration
  in the final closure and reclamation plan.
       ECCC commented that LMI consider both the high and
  low emission scenarios along with the average emission
  scenario for the thermal modelling and contingency
  plans.  LMI also considered the high and low emission
  scenarios for thermal modelling and developed
  contingency plans that consider both.
       LMI's final submission of January 3rd clarified
  that the work carried out under Commitments Numbers 12
  and 13, which included that under the high emissions
  scenario with the higher risks -- highest risks
  indicated that the Lupin TCA will perform as intended,
  and, therefore, does not require contingency planning
  under proposed climate risk scenarios.  LMI considered
  this item to be resolved.
       Commitment Number 14, post-closure monitoring
  plan, following discussion with all stakeholders.  This
  commitment was identified to be filed by LMI one year
  following approval of the licence by the Minister.
  ECCC commented in their final submission, specifically
  under Item 4, but also under Items 2, 3, 5, and 6, and
  recommending monitoring requirements, frequency,
  locations, and instrumentation for the post-closure
  monitoring plan.  CIRNAC also commented that HHERA
  results be included and considered in the required
  monitoring plan.
       In their final response, LMI confirmed in its
  response to parties regarding the post-closure
  monitoring plan under Commitments Numbers 1, 3, and 5,
  that the concerns would be addressed in the proposed
  post-closure monitoring plan.  LMI, therefore,
  considers this item to be resolved.
       And, finally, Commitment Number 15, LMI was to
  provide a draft licence framework identifying suggested
  amendments to the existing licence.  This was filed
  with LMI's final submission dated January 3rd.
       ECC provided their Comment Number 8, and
  recommended LMI note the proposed new criteria under
  Schedule 4 of the MDMER in the event of discharges in
  2021 and forward and also recommended that LMI update
  the definition of "recognized closed mine".
       In LMI's final response, LMI acknowledged ECCC's
  comments and provided additional recommended text to
  the NWB in their submission.  LMI considers this item
  to be resolved.
       LMI wishes to note for the reviewers a few minor
  licence condition changes that were included in the
  draft water licence framework with respect to water use
  and water discharge.  As noted earlier, water-use
  requirements have been converted in the draft licence
  framework from the original requested metres-cubed-
  per-day amount to a metres cubed per year for the
  initial closure activities of 250,000 -- 25 metres
  cubed per year.  This is -- this is to be consistent
  with the care and maintenance units of 5,000 cubic
  metres per year.
       LMI has included, in their final submission, a
  licence condition for use of water from sources other
  than Contwoyto Lake and recommends the use of roadside
  ponds and lakes for the use of industrial purposes such
  as dust control on the roads during construction.  This
  would allow for an easier access to water sources and
  avoid a lot of unnecessary travel on the road
  connecting the mine site and Contwoyto Lake to the
  tailings containment area.
       And as a final note, LMI has included conditions
  for waste discharge regarding the tailings containment
  area effluent, Part E, Item 3, to allow for maximum
  discharge of 125,000 cubic metres per day to allow for
  full discharge of the TCA water during the 2020
  open-water season.  The current licence allows for a
  discharge of 70,000 cubic metres per day, and I noticed
  there's a typo on the screen there.  LMI considers the
  item of the draft water licence framework to be
  resolved.
       So outside of the comments received regarding the
  commitments listed off in the pre-hearing conference
  decision, there was some additional comments received
  from CIRNAC regarding some items in the application, so
  the first comment was regarding the renewed -- or
  renewal licence term.
       CIRNAC had no comment on the seven-year term
  requested, and LMI would like to reconfirm and note to
  the Water Board that on November 15th, in their
  submission, a requested changed licence term was added
  to request the term to 12 years, which would include
  the time required for closure activities, post-closure
  monitoring, and then the final year to year and a half
  or so required to apply and process a licence renewal.
  LMI considers this item or comment to be resolved.
       CIRNAC provided, in a second comment, water-use
  requirement, CIRNAC had no comment on the requested
  water use, and in response, LMI refers the NWB to its
  final submission January 3rd in the draft licence --
  water licence framework which clarifies the water-use
  requirements needed under the licence for the closure
  activities.
       CIRNAC Comment Number 3 in their final submission,
  CIRNAC had no further comment on waste disposal, and,
  again, LMI refers the NWB to the draft water licence
  framework submitted.
       CIRNAC Comment Number 4 was regarding the status
  of Commitments Number 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.  CIRNAC
  commented that with the exception of Commitment 7,
  CIRNAC requires additional information.  LMI provided,
  in their final submission, a response.  Further
  discussion with CIRNAC has resulted in resolution and
  additional requests to be provided in advance of or at
  the hearing in the form of exhibits.  Some of those
  exhibits have been submitted and distributed.  They
  will be presented here, I believe, later on in this
  hearing process, and LMI continues talks with CIRNAC
  regarding any further additional information required
  prior to the end of the hearing.
       CIRNAC Comment Number 5 and 6, draft water licence
  regarding the draft water licence framework and
  management plans and reports.  CIRNAC had no concerns,
  and LMI refers the NWB to the list of issues that will
  be discussed during this licence process and public
  hearing.
       CIRNAC Comment Number 9 is with regards to the
  reclamation security cost estimate, Commitment Number
  2, and the framework for progressive release of
  security, Number 9.  CIRNAC commented and required that
  provided -- or they provided further comment to the
  initial submission requesting clarity on several items
  in the LMI cost estimate, and LMI provided a proposal
  for a framework and will provide -- CIRNAC will provide
  comment regarding -- or with regards to a draft.
       LMI's response, in their final submission, under
  Items Number 2 and Number 8, LMI referred CIRNAC and
  the NWB to the draft water licence framework Attachment
  C, security framework agreement, which was developed
  under Commitment Number 15, and I'd like to note that
  LMI and CIRNAC have been in discussions since the above
  submission on January 3rd and have committed to further
  discussions in advance and at the public hearing, with
  a summary to be provided as exhibits.
       Some additional comments from ECCC, in their final
  submission, the duration -- regarding the duration of
  permanent monitoring and timing and clarification.
  ECCC commented that LMI include thresholds for water
  quality and tailings cover performance that would
  trigger moving to reduce monitoring frequency or
  intensity in the proposed post-closure monitoring plan.
  Monitoring of the TCA cover and water quality to be
  done over a duration that is sufficient to demonstrate
  physical and chemical stability and acceptable quality
  for the long term.
       LIM's response was that thresholds would be
  included in the proposed post-closure monitoring plan
  and that monitoring will be undertaken until physical
  and chemical stability is achieved.  Final duration of
  monitoring will be dependent on those water-quality
  results.
       ECC commented, as well, on the waste rock
  consolidation and rock dome.  ECCC recommended sampling
  of adjacent lakes, water quality of visible seeps or
  flows, and identify thresholds that would require
  remedial measures.
       LMI provided a response in their final submission
  of January 3rd that they will develop and implement a
  detailed surface water monitoring program for the
  adjacent lakes.  An adaptive approach to the seepage
  and lake monitoring program will enable the
  implementation of additional remedial options if
  required to mitigate seepage discharge to the adjacent
  lakes.
       LMI did include, in its final submission, under
  Attachment 2, a proposed general monitoring table of
  changes, and that table of changes included monitoring
  locations at those lakes identified by ECCC.
       ECCC's Comment Number 7 was with respect to
  asbestos disposal, and LMI commits to following
  appropriate guidelines for the disposal of
  asbestos-containing materials, and ECCC considered this
  item to be resolved.
       As a quick final summary of the list of
  commitments and resolution, under Appendix D of the
  pre-hearing conference decision, CIRNAC provided a
  request of eight commitments, six which have been
  resolved or considered resolved by LMI.  Commitment
  Number 2 remains outstanding regarding the updated
  security estimate, and Commitment Number 6 regarding
  geotechnical -- oh, sorry, I missed Commitment Number
  2, updated security estimate, to provide conceptual
  grading plans for Dams K and 'M' and would be discussed
  further under -- during the public -- the public
  hearing.  Commitment Number 6, geotechnical details of
  engineered structures, LMI to provide conceptual
  drawings with respect to drainage pathways on these
  covers from Cell 3 and 5.
       Commitments requested by ECCC, five were requested
  at the pre-hearing conference decision, or in the
  pre-hearing conference decision, and five have been
  resolved.  Commitments requested by LMI, there was one
  regarding the joint submission with CIRNAC on
  security -- the security framework for return of
  security, and that item is currently under discussion.
       Commitments requested by the NWB, one, and that
  was with regards to the draft licence -- draft water
  licence framework, and that's resolved, so there's none
  remaining.
       We've summarized, initially, potential exhibits to
  be submitted at the public hearing.  One of them would
  be the conceptual design of the waste rock dome concept
  to satisfy CIRNAC's Commitment Request Numbers 5 and 6,
  and Stantec preliminary design level explanation of
  waste rock storage dome design, again, CIRNAC
  Commitment Numbers 5 and 6.
       Exhibit Number 3, the decision matrix under
  Commitment 8, and I believe that is still under further
  discussion for agreement prior to the end of the public
  hearing, and LMI's framework for progressive release of
  security under Commitment 9 to be further discussed and
  agreed upon and submitted prior to the end of the
  public hearing, and a final exhibit was with regards to
  a proposed updated implementation schedule for closure
  activities.
       Final slide, just a summary of contact information
  for both Mandalay Resources and Lupin Mines
  Incorporated.
       I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the
  Board, Mr. Chair, NWB Staff, the Intervenors, CIRNAC,
  and Environment and Climate Change Canada, and those
  members of the public that have come in to join us at
  this meeting for the opportunity to present on behalf
  of LMI, and we invite any questions.
       Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant, for your
  presentation this morning.
  Discussion
  THE CHAIR:               So, Stephanie, do we need to
  take care of anything?  Or, sorry, Teresa?
  MS. AUTUT:               Okay.  Thanks, Mr. Chair.
       So, first, I would suggest that we reserve
  questions till after the lunch period, but before we
  close for lunch, Teresa and I would like to just have a
  quick discussion with the parties.  I know Teresa
  updated everyone this morning about a potential change
  to the schedule over the next couple days.
       So there has been a death in the community that
  will see a funeral happening tomorrow in the afternoon
  starting at 1:00, so what the Board would like to
  propose is that we -- well, I'll have Teresa --
  basically, we break at lunch tomorrow and reconvene on
  Friday morning, but what that looks like, I'll have
  Teresa walk through what the expectations are of the
  parties by noon tomorrow and then when we return on
  Friday, so Teresa.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Stephanie.  Thank
  you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa Meadows, legal counsel for the
  Nunavut Water Board.
       So the expectation is that we have a Community
  Session scheduled for this evening, which will go ahead
  as planned.  Then tomorrow morning, our hope is that we
  will be through the majority of the agenda by noon
  tomorrow, subject to closing arguments and the final
  filing of documentation for Friday morning.
       As I'm sure you can appreciate, the Board has to
  take down the sound equipment for a community event in
  the hall starting at 5:00 tomorrow associated with the
  funeral services, and so if we are concluded, if
  every -- all the evidence is in by the end of noon
  tomorrow, we will not reconvene in the morning, would
  not need to do it on Friday, but if we do have to
  reconvene on Friday morning, our hope is, is that it's
  only for closing arguments, and then we will set up a
  more restricted, limited sound and interpretation
  equipment, make that available.
       So that is the tentative plan, so we appreciate --
  the Board appreciates the efforts of all the
  Intervenors and the parties here to be as concise as
  you can and as focused as you can in the questions that
  you're going to ask so that we can hopefully conclude
  things, perhaps, on Thursday, but, again, we have the
  residual plans in place, contingency for Friday morning
  as well.
       So thank you, Mr. Chair.  Those are my remarks.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.  We'll take
  a break now for a break, lunch, but when we come back,
  we'll have -- open up for questions/comments related to
  the Applicant's presentation this morning.
       Okay.  We'll come back at 1:15.  Thank you.  Take
  a break.
  _______________________________________________________
  PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL 1:15 PM
  _______________________________________________________
  (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 1:17 PM)
  THE CHAIR:               Good afternoon.  I think we
  can reconvene from the lunch break.
       Before the lunch break, we get into -- we were
  ready to go to questions and answers from -- for
  Applicant's presentation this morning.  Before going to
  that, I'd like to have our legal counsel, Teresa, to
  take care of the floor for a minute.
       Go ahead, Teresa.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that before we
  proceed into questions, Lupin Mines Incorporated has an
  addition to the presentation that they provided this
  morning consisting of further exhibits in relation to
  some ongoing commitments that they've been discussing
  with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada, and they have come to some agreement with
  respect to some additional wording in the commitments,
  and so they have provided additional materials to be
  filed electronically to -- in this public hearing, so I
  would like to turn over the mic to legal counsel for
  LMI to address what these additional materials are and
  then to speak to those materials.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Teresa.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines Incorporated.
       Yes, Mr. Chair, we propose to file three
  additional exhibits in advance of questions.  The first
  document is a Word document.  It's titled "Summary of
  Additional Commitments and Issue Resolution", today's
  date, and it's only two-and-a-half pages, and what that
  document does is it gives more detail about the agreed
  commitments that Lupin Mines Incorporated have made to
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  in order to resolve some of those issues that were
  outstanding at the time they filed their presentation,
  and so after I'm finished speaking to these exhibits, I
  would propose for Karyn Lewis from Lupin Mines to read
  that commitment list into the record so that the Board
  has a chance to hear it before we go into questions, so
  that's first document.
       The second document is a schedule.  Lupin Mines
  Incorporated mentioned their schedule for carrying out
  the reclamation activities during their presentation
  just now, and so we thought it would be useful to the
  Board to provide the Board with a bit more detail in
  the schedule, so we filed that as another electronic
  exhibit.  Unfortunately, just given the time and
  constraints, we weren't able to get a paper copy of
  that, but we have given you an electronic copy.
       And then the third exhibit is one that I will be
  handing to your legal counsel very shortly, and what
  that document is, is a -- it's a document which
  reflects the security milestones that we referenced in
  our presentation, and so what that document is, is that
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  and Lupin Mines Incorporated have had ongoing
  discussions for the last few months about agreed
  milestones and the value of meeting those milestones
  over the course of the reclamation, and so we
  anticipate that those -- that milestones document will
  be part of the security reduction framework, which
  we're still working on, but we thought, in the
  meantime, it was useful for the Board to have that
  milestones document, so with your permission, we'll
  walk that over.  We just have it on a stick for Teresa
  Meadows.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Those are -- those are the
  three exhibits, and then if it pleases you, Karyn Lewis
  can read in the LMI commitments and issue resolution
  document.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant.
       Teresa.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       And, Mr. Chair, I also wanted to recognize on the
  record that these electronic materials, the two -- the
  first two documents have been circulated in electronic
  form to the other Intervenors that are present.
  Obviously, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
  Affairs Canada has looked at them, seeing as there's
  agreement, but Environment and Climate Change Canada
  also has been copied on the electronic circulation of
  these materials, but if you are having difficulty
  accessing them for any reason, please come and see us,
  and we can -- we can pull them up so that you can take
  a look at them, and then with respect to the document
  on the stick, we will also -- I will also make that
  available to any of the participants that are here as
  well.  Any of the Intervenors who have not received it
  in electronic copy already, please feel free to come
  over and see me at the break, and we will provide that
  to you.
       EXHIBIT 13 - Electronic Copy, Summary of
       Additional Commitments and Issue Resolution
       Dated January 15, 2020 (English)
       EXHIBIT 14 - Electronic Copy, Updated Lupin
       Mine Remediation Schedule January 2020 Dated
       January 13, 2020 (English)
       EXHIBIT 15 - Electronic Copy, Security
       Framework Milestones for draft water licence
       framework (English)
  MS. MEADOWS:             So thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Those are my procedural matters.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Teresa.
       You want to continue or are you ready for
  questions and answers?  Go ahead.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, Lupin Mines
  Incorporated.
       Mr. Chair, if it's okay with you, we'd like to
  read in the new commitments that Lupin Mines has made
  to Crown-Indigenous Relations before we start
  questions, just so everyone starts with an
  understanding of the additional commitments, if that's
  okay with you.
  THE CHAIR:               Yes.  I accept that.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Mr. Chair, it's Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Would it will helpful to project it while you're
  speaking to it?
       Okay.  Maybe, Mr. Chair, if you can just give us
  two minutes to actually get it from this computer to
  that computer?
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.
       Thank you.  Go ahead, Applicant.
  Presentation by Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.
       So it's the document on the screen, so a summary
  of additional commitments and issue resolution dated
  January 15th, 2020.
       At the time CIRNAC filed its final hearing
  presentation on January 10th, 2020, it identified the
  following three issues as outstanding on Slide 13.  We
  do note that it says "two" up there, but it is three.
       Number 1, long-term stability of cover and dams;
  Number 2, management of tailings exposed when water
  levels are lowered; and 3, insufficient information for
  security estimation.  What follows provides a summary
  of the discussions and commitments which have since
  resolved these issues.
       CIRNAC Hearing Presentation Regarding Commitment
  Number 1.  Background:  CIRNAC and LMI had bilateral
  discussions on January 7th, 2020, as well as a call
  with Board Staff, and CIRNAC confirmed that their
  outstanding issues with respect to Commitments 3 and 4
  were resolved with LMI's confirmations respecting
  monitoring.  This will be addressed in the monitoring
  plan which will be submitted within one year following
  the issuance of the amended water licence.  Status:
  Resolved.
       CIRNAC Hearing Presentation Regarding Commitment 2
  and 9 -- Commitments 2 and 9.  Background:  This matter
  was further discussed between CIRNAC and LMI on January
  14th, 2020.  LMI provided more information responsive
  to CIRNAC's request on January 7th, 2020, and added the
  additional information discussed on January 14th, 2020.
  The updated wording is as filed with the attached,
  which is what we -- which we just gave to Teresa
  Meadows on the stick.  Status :  Resolved.
       CIRNAC Hearing Presentation Regarding Commitments
  3 and 4.  Background:  CIRNAC and LMI had bilateral
  discussions on January 7th, 2020, as well as a call
  with Board Staff, and CIRNAC confirmed that their
  outstanding issues with respect to Commitments 3 and 4
  were resolved with LMI's confirmation respecting
  monitoring.  This will be addressed in the monitoring
  plan which will be submitted within one year following
  the issuance of amended water licence.  Status:
  Resolved.
       CIRNAC Hearing Presentation Concluding Comment 1,
  Commitment 5 and 7.  Background:  The mine site dome
  cross-section provided on January 10th in response to
  the request for more information to support Commitment
  5 and 7, which was provided -- sorry, which was to
  provide a preliminary design level explanation of the
  waste rock storage dome, LMI provided the
  cross-sections in a memo provided on January 10th,
  2020, and a follow-up discussion was held with CIRNAC
  on January 14th, 2020, where CIRNAC indicated that the
  preliminary design and cross-section meets the intent
  of Commitment 5.
       Commitment:  LMI commits to provide additional
  details on the cross-section to identify conceptual
  water features and their slopes along with notes on
  erosion control features and typical locations where
  they would be installed.  LMI additionally commits to
  provide the north/south preliminary design level
  cross-section, including these same additional drainage
  and erosion control concepts.  Both of these items will
  be provided to CIRNAC within 60 days of the issuance of
  an amended water licence.
       Status:  CIRNAC confirms that this commitment
  resolves their outstanding concern respecting
  Commitment 5 and 7, and CIRNAC Hearing Presentation
  Concluding Comment 1 is now considered resolved.
       CIRNAC Hearing Presentation Concluding Comment 1,
  Commitment 6.  Background:  Following Lupin Mine
  Incorporated's response to Commitment 6, which was to
  provide geotechnical details of the tailings
  containment area, TCA, engineered structures to ensure
  long-term stability and erosion control, a geotechnical
  stability review was performed concluding that Dam M
  and Dam K require resloping for final closure.
       During a call with CIRNAC on January 7th, 2020,
  CIRNAC requested additional resloping details to be
  presented in the form of two cross-sections.  LMI
  provided the cross-sections in a memo provided on
  January 10th, 2020, and a follow-up discussion was held
  with CIRNAC on January 14th, 2020.
       Commitment:  LMI commits to provide additional
  details on the Dam K and Dam M cross-sections, more
  specifically, a zoomed-in image that more clearly
  identifies the materials used for the resloping, the
  distance that the resloping materials will extend from
  the crest of Dam M and Dam K, and through a break line,
  and with minimums and maximums noted, the distances to
  the closure water levels from each of these two
  resloped structures.  In addition, LMI commits to
  provide a perpendicular longitudinal cross-section to
  supplement the typical outflow structure details
  provided in the January 10th memo.  The longitudinal
  cross-section, one for Cell 5 and one for Cell 3, will
  provide invert elevations from the cover to the ponds,
  along with a design note to clarify the storm-return
  period that will be used for the detailed design
  features.  Both of these items will be provided to
  CIRNAC within 60 days of the issuance of an amended
  water licence.
       Status:  CIRNAC confirms that this commitment
  resolves their outstanding concern regarding
  Commitment 6, and CIRNAC Hearing Presentation
  Concluding Comment 1 is now considered resolved.
       CIRNAC Hearing Presentation Concluding Comment 2,
  Commitment 8.  Background:  Following the submission of
  the Commitment 8 decision matrix and how potential
  contaminants would be managed once the water levels
  have been achieved, a call was held with CIRNAC on
  January 7th, 2020, where CIRNAC requested additional
  details.  The details on the decision matrix steps and
  the scientific backing for the cover in place was
  provided by LMI to CIRNAC.  This matter was further
  discussed between CIRNAC and LMI on January 14th, 2020.
       Commitment:  Based on the decision matrix steps
  and scientific backing considerations provided to
  CIRNAC, LMI has determined that all exposed tailings
  will be covered in place.  Relocation is not considered
  appropriate due to the listed environmental and
  operational health and safety risks set out in the
  decision matrix steps.  LMI commits to provide
  additional information to CIRNAC to provide further
  rationale to support its view that the in-situ cover is
  effective and robust, including preliminary details and
  typical sections on how the cover will be constructed
  on newly exposed tailings to ensure it is stable and
  protected against long-term erosion.  This information
  will be in the form of a memorandum and will be
  provided to CIRNAC within 60 days of the issuance of an
  amended water licence.
       Status:  CIRNAC confirms that this commitment
  resolves their outstanding concern regarding Commitment
  8, and CIRNAC Hearing Presentation Concluding Comment 2
  is not considered resolved.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair -- oh, actually, sorry.  One
  more thing to comment on.
       In our presentation, we have a typo on page 25.
  The tailings cover, we had put that there was
  approximately 199,000, and then we had covered 10,500,
  so the remaining at the bottom didn't minus out the
  10,500, but our security estimate is correct, with a
  little bit additional of one thousand ninety-five
  hundred, so I just wanted to make sure that that typo
  was noted.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant, for
  updating us from our latest agreement.
       Karén, go ahead.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines
  Incorporated
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Just for confirmation, there were a number of
  commitments associated between the issuance of licence.
  Just to confirm it, LMI and CIRNAC, whether they did
  mean "issuance", or they did mean "approval"?
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for 'L' -- Lupin Mines Incorporated.  Sorry,
  just one moment, Mr. Chair.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Just for clarity, we mean
  "on approval".
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant.
       Now I think we're, kind of, getting ready to open
  up for questions and answers or questions or comments.
  I'd like to start with Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs, if you have questions or comments
  related to Applicant's presentation from this morning
  and continuation from just a while ago.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  So I'm
  Godwin from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
  Affairs Canada.
       We don't have any questions at this time.  We'll
  leave it to for our presentation.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, CIRNAC.
       Now, we'll open up for Environment and Climate
  Change Canada.
  Environment and Climate Change Canada Questions Lupin
  Mines Incorporated
  MS. WALKER:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Eva
  Walker with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
  Just a few clarifications for the record, based on
  conversations that we had off the record.
       So can LMI confirm for the record that the
  assumptions for all the climate scenarios assessed
  included precipitation increasing?
  MS. WILKINS:             Hello.  This is Sara Wilkins
  with Stantec.
       Can I ask you to repeat just the last sentence?
  Sorry.
  MS. WALKER:              Can you confirm that the
  climate scenarios that were used assumed that
  precipitation would increase?
  MS. WILKINS:             Thank you.
       Yes, I can confirm that in the climate scenarios
  and in our risk assessments, we assumed that
  precipitation would increase.
  MS. WALKER:              Eva Walker for Environment and
  Climate Change Canada.
       The other question I had related to the climate
  models was with -- what -- sorry.  Can you clarify or
  confirm what future emission scenarios were considered
  for the tailings cover?
  MS. WILKINS:             Sara Wilkins with Stantec.
  Thanks for your question.
       We considered the low emissions scenario, the high
  emissions scenario from the Canada's climate
  changing -- sorry, let me get that exact quote.  One
  second -- from Canada's changing climate report issued
  in 2019.  From those high emission scenario and low
  emission scenario, we additionally calculated an
  average emission scenario, and we modelled all three
  for the tailings containment area.
  MS. WALKER:              Hi.  This is Eva Walker with
  Environment and Climate Change Canada.
       And just to confirm, you're referring to tailings
  cover?
  MS. WILKINS:             For the tailings containment
  area, we conducted a risk assessment, and the risk
  assessment concluded that in recent -- in development,
  excuse me, of the recent climate emissions scenario
  models, that precipitation would increase; therefore,
  the cover assessment previously conducted by Holubec
  would remain valid.
  MS. WALKER:              Thank you.  I have -- Eva
  Walker with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
       I have no further questions.  I will now turn it
  other to my colleague, Anne Wilson.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you.  Anne Wilson with
  Environment and Climate Change Canada.  I have a few
  questions on monitoring, and then a question on timing,
  so I'll start with the monitoring.
       We appreciate that there's going to be, within the
  year following licence issuance, a long-term monitoring
  plan put in place, and we think a lot is riding on
  this, and it will certainly help alleviate some of our
  concerns.  I just wanted to talk a bit about what forum
  this might be taking place under for stakeholder
  involvement.
  MS. WILKINS:             Mr. Chair, could we have a
  moment to discuss?
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah.  Go ahead.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Yeah, make sure you
  keep introducing yourself.  Make sure you keep saying
  your name before you speak for the record and
  someone's -- there's persons on the phone as well.
  MS. LEWIS:               Yes.  Yeah, so Karyn Lewis,
  LMI.
       Mr. Chair, we would be putting together a draft
  monitoring plan probably within the six-month mark and
  engaging with CIRNAC and ECCC to go through it before
  we actually submit it to the Board as promised within a
  year, so that gives us some time to go through, that
  everybody's comfortable with it before we send it to
  the NWB, and then I assume once it's with the NWB, it
  would go out for comment, and there could be further
  comment with -- from other parties as well.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       ECCC, go ahead.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.  Thank you.
       I think within the six months, that would be very
  helpful, and I don't know if it would be useful to have
  further conversations about the baseline monitoring
  that's to be done for the receiving environment for the
  dome, just a few questions which are of minor details,
  it would be of interest to me if we discuss on that
  one, so I'll just go to my next question at this point.
       In Attachment 2 of the response to the
  Intervenors' submissions, the monitoring is shown as
  being five years with one more monitoring event at Year
  10, and the benchmark noted was until chemical
  stability is achieved, so I have two questions.  First
  off, how will "chemical stability" be defined, and just
  the thought that Year 10 might still be too soon to
  call it a wrap, that I would hope that the ICRP
  schedule of up to 25 years would still be on the table.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Anne.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.  Can we just
  take a moment to ...  thanks.
  THE CHAIR:               Make sure you mention your
  name for the record as well, so for the ...
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, Stantec.
       So we were planning on developing those criteria
  for stability and the potential for decreased
  monitoring, if that stability is reached in accordance
  with the different Intervenors, and that would be part
  of what we are submitting as we move forward.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, ECCC.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you.  Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       And as far as the time frame, would -- just 10
  years contemplated under this licence term, what would
  the envisioned maximum time frame be following that if
  stability hasn't been reached?
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, Stantec.
       Again, we feel like until we see the results of
  the early monitoring, it's hard to say how long -- how
  long that those monitoring -- how long that the
  monitoring would need to extend into the future to
  determine if stability is reached, so that would need
  to be something that's decided as we start to see
  the -- those initial results.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.  Thank you
  for that.
       With apologies to CIRNAC, because this is
  definitely their territory, not ours, would the
  security amount maintain the funding available to do 25
  years of monitoring as was laid out in the ICRP so that
  that would be available in the final version?
  MS. LEWIS:               I'm just going to check my
  file, if that's okay?
       Thanks.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.
  MR. BOCKING:             Ken Bocking.
       The cost model has been set up and has an
  allowance for a total of ten sampling episodes spread
  out over a 25-year period.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant.
       Go ahead, Environment and Climate Change Canada.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you.  Anne Wilson,
  Environment and Climate Change Canada.  My last
  question is to do with the timing of some of the works.
       At what point will the syphon removal and the
  spillway construction be done?
  MS. LEWIS:               Thank you.  Karyn Lewis.
       Can you let me know which spillway you're
  referring to?
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       That would be the discharge into their receiving
  environment into Seep Creek from Pond 2.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead.
  MS. LEWIS:               I'm just going to take one
  second.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.  Go
  ahead, Applicant.
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, Stantec.
       So the breaching of those spillways would be
  dependent on the monitoring results, so it's hard to
  define an actual year that that would happen.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Climate Change Canada.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you.  Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       You can probably see where I'm coming from on
  this.  The Metal Mining and Effluent -- Metal and
  Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations will be in force
  until January 30th, 2022, provided all the recognized
  closed mine requirements are met, and I'm just curious
  as to whether there is a possibility of the discharge
  happening within that time period?
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, Stantec.
       So if the -- if the treatment and discharge goes
  as planned in 2020, this would be the last year that we
  are treating and discharging before the spillways are
  breached, and once that happens, it's expected to be --
  for the site to passively drain.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Climate Change Canada.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       That didn't quite hit the mark.  There -- the
  question is, is there a possibility of passive releases
  occurring before you're a recognized closed mine?
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, Stantec.
       Currently, there's no plan to breach the dams
  between -- before 2022, so there shouldn't be any
  discharge prior to that, any passive discharge prior to
  that.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Anne.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you, Mr. Chair, and that
  was all our questions.
       Thanks.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.
       Applicant, do you want to continue?  Go ahead.
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair.  David
  Hohnstein, LMI.
       Just a point of clarification for Anne's first
  question on timing of the closure plan and potential
  meetings there.  I think the intent for LMI was to
  submit, within six months, a framework for the final --
  or the long-term monitoring plan, which would lead into
  discussions over the next six months prior to the
  requirement to submit a plan to the Water Board.
       I hope that answers the question a little -- a
  little better.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant.
       I think we are now ready to open for members of
  public.  If there is any questions or comments, you may
  do so, and come to the microphone.  You can raise your
  questions or comments.
       Okay.  I take that there's nothing from public.
       I'd like to ask the Board Staff, is there any
  questions to the Applicant's presentation?
       Go ahead.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines
  Incorporated
  MS. AUTUT:               Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Stephanie Autut with the Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, the Staff do have some questions for
  the Applicant, and I'll hand the microphone over to
  Karén.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank
  you, Stephanie.  Karén Kharatyan from Water Board.
       A few clarifications, and before starting things,
  our reason for asking my question -- I had the same
  question later, that from our understanding that after
  2020 discharge from Pond 2, that all tailings will be
  covered with esker material; then based on the
  assessment of water quality, the company will make the
  decision whether spillways will be constructed or no.
       So from our understanding, and to also mention in
  the final closure reclamation plan, if the water
  quality meets the guidelines, so that means our
  understanding was that if the water quality meets -- if
  it's after 2020, discharge quality meets Metal and
  Diamond Mines Effluent Regulation guidelines, what
  happens if it doesn't meet the guideline at that time?
       After 2020 discharge, if you -- without still
  breaching dike or anything, before constructing the
  spillway, if your monitoring shows that -- or
  assessment shows that you don't still meet the
  guideline or met MDMER, and also taking into account
  that within some time, the mine will be getting the
  status of recognized closed mine, what is the next step
  if the water quality doesn't meet the MDMER?
  MS. LEWIS:               Can I take a minute?
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, Stantec.
       So the current plan is that we would leave
  sufficient equipment on site that if the water quality
  did not meet the guidelines that were required, we
  would have equipment on the staff [sic] to potentially
  treat the water again for discharge and then decide on
  a plan forward.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Karén.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.  This is Karén
  Kharatyan from Water Board.
       With assuming that within some time, Fisheries 36,
  I think, (3) section will be applicable, so it's still
  not clear, for me, whether if you need treatment for
  some time once the -- and we are close to have this
  status provided by ECCC, what will be the -- because
  the requirement under Section 36 may be different.
  That could be different from just MDMER, so how you
  will -- what will be the guideline or regulation to
  comparable to quality, or not just the water quality,
  because 36(3) has more requirement than just MDMER.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Christine Kowbel, legal counsel for LMI -- sorry, Lupin
  Mines Incorporated.
       Mr. Chair, I think we're -- I'm not sure what the
  question the Board is asking, but just to confirm if
  this is the question:  Lupin Mines is well aware that
  it has to comply with all territorial and federal legal
  requirements, and one of those is that it must -- if it
  is to discharge, it must discharge in compliance with
  the Fisheries Act, including Section 36, and it must
  discharge in compliance with the MDMER, and so -- and
  so Lupin confirms it would -- it would be
  discharging -- it wouldn't -- it couldn't nor would it
  be looking to discharge at levels different than
  permitted under the Fisheries Act or MDMER.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I hope that clarifies that
  question.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan.  Yes, it
  clarifies, and same thing, thank you for response.
       The next clarification I will be looking for is
  with respect to security estimates.  One was originally
  included within final closure and reclamation plan, and
  the second revised one was submitted in November, so
  while the general total cost estimate is higher, we
  noticed that there are -- this is higher due to two
  items, mostly, indirect contractor cost estimate, a new
  item, and mobilization/demobilization; and LMI stated
  that the other -- the other environmental liability big
  items decreased sometimes twice or even more, like rock
  piles or tailing, et cetera, and LMI has stated that
  this updated cost estimate is based on the LMI contract
  with contractor, so the question is whether all these
  big items within the summary are based on the LMI
  contract with contractor, or there are changeover
  approach of final closure reclamation.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Applicant, go ahead.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.
       We can confirm, in our security estimate, that the
  contractor costs are in there, unless it's something
  that's happening after 2022, which we put in notes,
  which would still be based on estimates that we had in
  our previous version, but the amount did go up based on
  our signed contract with our contractor, and those
  rates are based on what it would cost our contractor to
  carry out that work.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       So I can assume that LMI confirms that there is no
  any change of final closure reclamation approach that
  was presented within the final closure reclamation
  plan?
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.
       The approach is the same.  The cost has just
  changed.
  MR. DONALD:              Derek Donald, Nunavut Water
  Board.  I've got a couple of quick questions here as
  well.
       I guess the first question has to do with the --
  mainly the Upper Sewage Lake, and I was just wondering
  if sewage sludge was ever considered a potential issue
  there, and if so, how is it going to be managed?
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. LEWIS:               Can we just take a minute?
  Thanks.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, Stantec.
       So the current plan is that part of the sewage
  lagoon would become the landfill, and that portion of
  the -- of whatever sludge was present in the bottom of
  the lagoon would be covered, and a portion of that
  would not be covered by the landfill.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Water Board Staff, Derek.
  MR. DONALD:              Derek Donald, Nunavut Water
  Board.  Thank you.
       Just one more question for clarification for
  myself, and this has to do with the volume of waste
  discharged.  In the draft licence framework provided,
  the total volume had increased from the previous
  licence.  The previous licence, I think, was 70,000
  cubic metres, and it was increased to 125,000, and just
  for my, I guess, own clarity, is that increase in
  volume basically just to do with the discharge from the
  tailings containment area?
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. LEWIS:               We'll just take -- we're just
  going to take one minute here.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.
  MR. MCKINLEY:            Jim McKinley, Stantec.
       So the request for an increased discharge flow
  rate was so that we could comply with the schedule of
  activities this summer and lower the water levels in
  Pond 2 and Pond 1 and Cell 4 to the closure levels as
  quickly as possible to allow for other operations on
  site this summer.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Okay.  Yeah, Karén, go ahead.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Just a follow-up to ECCC's question regarding
  post-closure monitoring and agencies involved with a
  review of these post-closure monitoring.  So just maybe
  a question to all parties about the approach, if Board
  decide to issue a licence.
       If the post-closure monitoring section within the
  licence monitoring program is -- remained not -- I
  wouldn't say blank, but as per a post-closure
  monitoring plan, would this approach be acceptable
  by -- for agencies and to LMI or no?
       This is -- this is assuming that changes may be
  made within post-closure monitoring plan, so instead of
  issuing another type of post-closure monitoring, just
  incorporate the time of the post-closure monitoring
  requirements and issue at that time, whilst the plan is
  approved.
  MS. LEWIS:               Can we take a moment?  Thank
  you.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thank you, Mr. Chair.  David
  Hohnstein, LMI.
       Just for clarification, we'd like the Staff to, I
  guess, clarify regarding the post-closure monitoring,
  the section you're referring to in the licence, you
  would be referring to the monitoring plan to be
  submitted, and not including any requirements as far as
  post-closure, but there would still be the standard
  requirements for monitoring prior to closure.  I guess
  just looking for some clarification as to what may or
  may not be included or wanting to be omitted in that
  section of the licence.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       This is, Dave, just within monitoring program
  included within the section -- within the schedule, not
  licence conditions, but within the schedule, just
  according to the draft framework, the post-closure
  monitoring is planned to start from 2022, so this part
  is according to draft framework.  It goes to 2026.
  While we know that there may be a requirement of
  monitoring after 2026 because the agreement was to have
  a 12-year licence, not seven years, so the approach
  that I am not -- I am -- this is just an idea, if this
  approach would be acceptable, leaving this, that after
  2022, post-closure monitoring as per approved
  post-closure monitoring plan.  So once this
  post-closure monitoring is reviewed by parties and
  approved, the table for parameters, frequency, et
  cetera, for post-closure monitoring could be
  incorporated within the approved -- or issued
  separately as this is the post-closure monitoring
  requirements.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MR. HOHNSTEIN:           Thanks, Mr. Chair.  David
  Hohnstein again, LMI.
       Yes, LMI's totally in agreement with replacing the
  proposed monitoring table and schedules that are
  included with the draft water licence framework with
  those that may be included with the approved
  post-closure monitoring plan when it's submitted and
  eventually approved by the Board.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I will also ask parties
  whether they will -- they agree with this approach.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, ECCC.
  Response to Nunavut Water Board Question by Environment
  and Climate Change Canada
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.  I was
  closest to the mic, so I jumped up.
       We would agree with that approach to leave the
  wording to be determined by the plan.
  Response to Nunavut Water Board Question by
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  THE CHAIR:               CIRNAC, go ahead.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       We, CIRNAC, would also, like, be okay with that
  approach; however, I did -- maybe I will speak to it
  later.  I will have the opportunity to look at the
  post-closure monitoring plan; right?
       Okay.  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Karén, go ahead.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines
  Incorporated
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       To answer Godwin's question, absolutely, Board
  will issue this plan for review by parties, and I am
  assuming that there will be follow-up question, et
  cetera, and the Board will exercise its power or
  mandate to approve the plan in the end of this review
  process.
       Just one clarification or comments that even with
  leaving the post-closure monitoring as per approved
  post-closure monitoring, just for LMI information, and
  thank you for providing this additional monitoring
  table.  These three receiving water bodies will still
  be subject to monitoring for pre-closure monitoring
  requirements.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Karén.
       Applicant, go ahead.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn, LMI.
       We do agree with that statement.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Water Board Staff.
       I'd like to go back to the public.  I think
  there's someone who had a question or comment.  Yeah,
  come to the microphone, raise your concern.
       Before you speak, state your name, please.
  Questions for Lupin Mines Incorporated by Community
  Representatives
  MR. PALONGYAK:           Koana, Ikkhivautaq.  My name
  is Jaco Palongyak.
       I've worked at Lupin previously for seven years.
  I live in Kugluktuk, Nunavut.  I worked at the Lupin
  Mine for seven years underground, and -- but before I
  started working there, I used to work at surface mine
  there, in the tailings pond area, and I've seen some --
  some dangerous chemicals that go into those tailings
  pond, and some animals contact with the -- with the
  dangerous chemical, and they pass away, or pass away in
  there, but I've never seen a report of animals dying in
  that tailings pond.  I wonder why.  Why are these
  reports not being reported to the local hunters and
  trappers or to responsible agencies that give out
  licence?  Because those animals are -- no matter if
  it's just one or not, that's one too many that pass
  away from these dangerous chemical.
       I want an assurance from -- from the company that
  during reclamation, that a hundred percent of these
  dangerous chemicals will be removed from -- from that
  land, 'cause that was part of my land when I was
  growing up as a young boy, and it quizzes me as to why
  we're not getting any reports as to animals dying in
  those tailings pond; okay?
       Koana.  Koana, Mr. Chairman.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. LEWIS:               Hi.  Karyn Lewis, LMI.
       Well, historically, before we had -- before I
  worked there in 2011, I have not heard of any animals
  dying in the tailings pond, nor have we encountered any
  animals in the tailings pond.  We would have reported
  if something like that's happened.
       We'd also note that in the tailings pond, when we
  treat the water, we treat it just for pH, that the
  criteria for water quality passes everything, when we
  do our sampling.  It's the pH that we're treating, to
  bring it up, but the chemicals all meet the criteria
  within Canada.
       And just a little further note, we do have a risk
  assessment on the tailings area.  The Human Health
  Ecological Risk Assessment was done and passed by the
  Nunavut Water Board as well.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       If there's no more further questions or comments
  from public, I am willing to move on to Board panel
  members.  Is there questions?
       Amanda?  Yeah.  Okay.
       Applicant, go ahead.
  MS. LABATTE:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Belinda
  Labatte from Mandalay Resources, director of Lupin
  Mines.
       I just would like to echo what Karyn has said, is
  that we have operating mines in two countries,
  Australia and Sweden, as well, and whether they are
  operating mines or is a project in closure, which we
  are here to discuss today, we take our environmental
  stewardship role very seriously.  We track any
  situation in which we have wildlife crossing or near
  to, or if anything happens adjacent to or on our mine
  site, these are recorded, and our compliance to
  regulatory authorities, to what the community is
  looking for, is the same whether it's an operating mine
  or a mine going through closure, and I appreciate your
  question.  Later this afternoon/this evening, I'll talk
  a little bit about our company and how we conduct our
  business and the values that underlie how we make
  decisions, and I would like to assure you that we are
  going to do our utmost to have a project that we can
  all be proud of when this concludes, including managing
  the hazardous waste in the most appropriate way; and
  with our contractor, they are very well aware of the
  kind of monitoring that we would want to see, including
  wildlife on site, nearby, and worst case, if there is a
  fatality, it would be reported.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Okay.  I think I have to go back to Water Board
  Staff once again.
       Karén, go ahead.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines
  Incorporated
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       One, maybe, request to LMI.  Would it be possible
  to just have this milestone for security projected and
  go through these document?  I am just wondering whether
  the goal of this milestone is also to inform the
  progressive reclamation?  If yes, how this will be
  informing, yes.
  MS. LEWIS:               Sorry.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.
       Go ahead.
  MS. LEWIS:               Hi, Karén.
       I was just wondering if you could clarify the
  question.  Are you talking about the schedule or the
  model, like, to see where -- how it's happening or ...
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       I am referring to a security framework milestone
  for draft water licence framework.  While I'm -- we are
  okay with the left side, which is the security,
  actually, the cost estimate; on the right side, we have
  different statement about verification, et cetera; just
  wondering whether this is to inform progressive release
  of security or no?  If yes, just wondering how, yes.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn --
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.
       The stuff on the right-hand side, there was the
  evidence that we went through with CIRNAC that would
  satisfy them to be able to do the progressive releases.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       So my understanding here about the progressive
  releases, this is to be confirmed by CIRNAC.  I'm
  trying to understand the logic of, yes, whether this is
  tied or associated with any environmental liability
  work conducted, or it's based on the timing or general
  logic about, yes.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.
       This is a document that CIRNAC and LMI worked on
  together, and they have reviewed, and we've submitted
  it, after confirming with them that it was okay to
  submit, that we were all good with everything that was
  in this document.  As part of -- I think it's Part C in
  the terms and conditions, there's a table that would be
  inserted in there, and that's the milestones that would
  be part of that.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       We can just project and go through it because I'm
  just wondering how the licence conditions or licence
  term will actually reflect this schedule.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah, go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Mr. Chair, I'd like to suggest that, perhaps,
  Lupin Mines defer this question until after.  I think
  that it'll be easier to talk about this whole issue
  once Crown-Indigenous Relations and Lupin Mines
  Incorporated provide their proposed wording for the
  framework as well, I think, and then maybe talk about
  both the milestones document and the framework all at
  once, so if it is okay with Mr. Chair, we would like to
  defer answering that question until we file that, the
  framework document that goes with the milestones
  document, and at this time, that framework document is
  still subject to discussions between CIRNAC and LMI
  before it can be finalized.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Is that okay?  Yeah, thank you.  We'll do that.
  (Question Deferred)
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  We can continue on.
       Now we are -- Amanda, a panel member, had a
  question.
  Nunavut Water Board Panel Questions Lupin Mines
  Incorporated
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Koana, Ikkhivautaq.  Amanda
  Hanson Main, panel member.
       I appreciate the Applicant's presentation, and in
  follow-up, I think, to Karén's question, which was
  around one of the filings made earlier today, can the
  Applicant confirm when we're to expect the joint
  framework to be submitted?  From looking through the
  materials, it's been, I think, since August that the
  joint framework has been in development, and so this is
  an issue of central importance to us to have access to
  before the end of the hearing, hopefully before, before
  the end of the hearing so we have a chance to consider
  and question appropriately.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Applicant, go ahead.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Christine Kowbel, Lupin Mines Incorporated.
       Mr. Chair, that is a -- I think it is both the
  intention of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
  Affairs Canada and Lupin Mines to file a joint
  submission before the end of this hearing on the
  framework.  We can provide the Board with an update on
  estimated timing of that at the end of the day today.
  One of the challenges is that we are working -- we are
  working with Crown-Indigenous Relations.  Some members
  of their team are not able to be with us today, and so
  we need to have time to work with that, but that is our
  intention, to file that with the Board before the end
  of this hearing.
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Koana, Ikkhivautaq.  Amanda
  Hanson Main again.
       And further to that, in the first -- one of the
  first exhibits you provided today, the commitments that
  were read out into the record, I believe, and correct
  me if I'm wrong, that you stated all those commitments
  stood resolved, including Numbers 2 and 9, and that
  would include an updated security estimate and the
  joint submission on framework for progressive release
  of security, so I just want to confirm if those things
  are resolved for Crown-Indigenous Relations and for
  Lupin Mines, if we -- if we've missed something, or if,
  indeed, they are confirmed, and they are resolved.
       I note from the Crown-Indigenous Relations, and
  it's unfortunate timing that their presentation hasn't
  come yet, but some of the outstanding issues included,
  for the security estimate, that insufficient
  explanations were provided for reducing costs and that
  the department was unable to create new reclamation
  estimates with the information provided, and so if that
  information has been provided, then, to CIRNAC, and
  you've come to resolution on that issue for the new
  security estimate, I just want to confirm that the
  Board also has that information available.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Okay.  Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn, LMI.
       As far as LMI's aware, we're just waiting to
  finish filing the security framework hopefully
  before -- which we want to file before the end of this
  public hearing, but I can let CIRNAC, when they get
  their presentation, answer for their -- themselves on
  that.
  THE CHAIR:               Oh, I forgot to push -- press
  it.
       All right.  Thank you.  We'll be moving on to
  Intervenors now, but before we do that, I would like to
  have a ten-minute break for now.
       Thank you.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Just to reconvene from the
  break, now we turn to a presentation by the
  Intervenors.  I remind the Intervenors that before they
  begin their presentation, our legal counsel needs you
  to swear or confirm -- affirm, sorry, and verify the
  material you will be presenting and marking as an
  exhibit.
       Teresa, please proceed with the procedural
  matters.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  So if I
  can have the witnesses state and spell their name for
  the record, please.
  MR. NOAH:                Noah Noah, N-O-A-H N-O-A-H.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Godwin Okonkwo, G-O-D-W-I-N
  O-K-O-N-K-W-O.  Thank you.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, that's G-E-R-D
  W-I-A-T-Z-K-A.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Do the witnesses wish to be sworn or affirmed?
  MR. OKONKWO:             Sworn.
  GODWIN OKONKWO, Sworn; GERD WIATZKA, NOAH NOAH,
  Affirmed
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, I will be filing the hard copy material
  of the presentation that Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs Canada is about to present, and I
  don't believe I have any additional exhibits to file in
  respect of the evidence that you are about to give
  here, but I just wanted to confirm that.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Yeah, I think it's pretty much
  this and the executive summary.  That's what we have.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So thank you, Mr. Chair.  I will be filing those
  materials as the next exhibits in this public hearing,
  and those are my procedural matters, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Teresa.
       EXHIBIT 16 - Hard Copy PowerPoint
       Presentation, Crown-Indigenous Relations and
       Northern Affairs Canada, Lupin Mine Inc.
       Renewal/Amendment Application for Water
       Licence 2AM-LUP1520 for Lupin Mine Project
       (English/Inuinnaqtun)
       EXHIBIT 17 - Hard Copy Executive Summary,
       Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
       Affairs Canada (English)
       EXHIBIT 18 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary
       Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
       Affairs Canada (Inuinnaqtun)
       EXHIBIT 19 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary
       Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
       Affairs Canada (French)
  THE CHAIR:               So, CIRNAC, you may go ahead
  with your presentation.
  Presentation by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
  Affairs Canada
  MR. OKONKWO:             All right.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.
       So good evening.  Good evening, everyone.  My
  name's Godwin Okonkwo.  I'm the manager of water
  resources with the Nunavut regional office of
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada,
  which I will refer to as "the department" with this
  presentation.
       I would like to thank the Nunavut Water Board for
  the opportunity to the -- for us to make this
  presentation at the public hearing regarding Lupin
  Mines Incorporated application to amend its water
  licence.
       I'm joined here today by Noah Noah as a land
  administrator, major projects from CIRNAC, and I'm also
  joined here by Gerd Wiatzka of Arcadis.  He's our
  consultant.  And on the phone, I have Spencer Dewar,
  who's my director, director of resource management, and
  Dale Kohlenberg, who is supporting us from the
  Department of Justice.
       At this time, I would like to state that our
  presentation had been completed in advance of Lupin
  Mines latest submissions, responses, and dialogues we
  had up until midnight yesterday, so, therefore, some of
  the information being presented, we may have reached --
  we have reached various levels of resolution, and we'll
  speak to this during the presentation.
       I also did want to say that this will be a joint
  presentation, so I will present some materials.  When I
  get to some of the technical parts, I will defer to
  Gerd to give more clarification on some of the
  technical areas.
       So throughout this presentation, like I earlier
  said, I will refer to Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs Canada as "the department", or in some
  cases "CIRNAC", so here's an outline of our
  presentation.
       I'll start with providing an overview of the
  department's -- of the department's responsibility in
  respect to the licence amendment and renewal
  application as well as a list of contributions that
  have been submitted as part of the licencing process so
  far.
       So we did go through many information requests and
  went through the technical meeting, and in all of it,
  to simplify this presentation, we did have a lot of
  technical comments, but we're going to -- for the
  purpose of this presentation, we're going to focus on
  only three, and that would include tailings and waste
  rock management, closure and reclamation planning, and
  then reclamation security cost estimate.  Within that
  reclamation cost estimate, we'll speak about the
  reclamation release framework.
       So the department has a broad mandate for
  comanagement of freshwater resources and the management
  of Crown land in Nunavut and following the applicable
  laws and agreements:  The Department of
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act,
  the Nunavut Agreement, the Nunavut Land Claims
  Agreement Act, the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface
  Rights Tribunal Act and associated regulations, the
  Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act,
  Territorial Lands Act and the associated regulations,
  and Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
       I'd just like to say the department also
  administers and enforces regulatory authorizations that
  pertain to Nunavut's Crown land and freshwater
  resources, so CIRNAC participates in water licence
  processes administered by the Nunavut Water Board,
  along with other interested parties providing technical
  advice and expertise for the Board's consideration.
       So contributions to the review to date.  To date,
  the department has made four submissions to the Nunavut
  Water Board and participated in technical meetings in
  June of -- so we started with an information request.
  We made submissions on March 4th, 2019, and then we
  participated in a technical review phase April 30th,
  2019.  We attended -- CIRNAC, or the department,
  attended and did presentations at a technical meeting
  and pre-hearing conference on June 6th and 7th, 2019.
  There was a review of submissions for commitment that
  we handed in by December 6th, 2019, and the final
  submission was made on December 18, 2019.  I'd also
  like to add that we've had several meetings with LMI to
  discuss outstanding issues until the midnight of
  January 14, 2019 [sic].  I'm stressing that because I
  need more coffee.  I'm a little sleepy.
  MS. MEADOWS:             2020.
  MR. OKONKWO:             2020.  So you see, I need more
  coffee.
       Okay.  So we had put this slide to show this was
  my staff who was lead on this file, he had taken a
  picture of Lupin mine site, so this, generally -- we
  put it there basically for the Community Session in the
  evening just to give a brief overview of what the Lupin
  mine site is about, what the licence is about, and so I
  may skip this because Lupin has given the rundown of
  what Lupin is, but we'll present this in the evening
  when we do the community presentation.
       So our first issue was with the tailings and waste
  rock management, and so Number 1 was potential
  contamination.  Our worry was potential contamination
  from waste rock used across construction materials, and
  so we had asked that historical construction data be
  reviewed to estimate how much waste rock has been used
  for infrastructure such as the dams.  Once -- the idea
  was once the volume of waste rock was known, we could
  assess if it was necessary to do geochemical modelling
  and pathway analysis for potential waste rock/acid rock
  drainage.
       The January 3rd comment from LMI, submission from
  LMI:  LMI provided additional comments on historic use
  of waste rock in construction of the dams.  This
  information noted that significantly more than -- more
  waste rock was used, about 400,000 metres cubed, in the
  construction of dams than estimated in LMI's October
  memo response; however, LMI suggested that much of the
  waste rock would be encapsulated by permafrost and that
  the ABA sampling and conclusion of the URS 2005 was
  still valid.
       LMI also referred to the Golder 2017 updated Phase
  1 and 2 environmental site assessment observation that
  in shallow waste rock, the majority of the sulfur is
  presently in the form of sulphate indicating that the
  waste rock is already with that and oxidizing and that
  on that basis, monitoring should be used in place of
  additional geochemical testing.  In this regard, LMI
  restated its commitment to post-closure monitoring, and
  CIRNAC considered that issue resolved.
       So still on the tailings and waste rock, the
  second issue was waste rock storage dome design and
  seepage.  We did ask for preliminary plans and sections
  and details on the waste rock dome to provide a better
  understanding of what work is planned, how the dome
  will be done.  Our challenge was, you know, to the
  stability, stability of the dome and how it's -- you
  know, if there's going to be any seepages.  We're
  satisfied, though, with -- we're satisfied with the
  proposal by LMI to collect seepage samples and update
  the model, so I'll defer to Gerd to give a little more
  details on this.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Yes.  We were concerned,
  originally, in terms of --
  THE CHAIR:               Please state your name --
  MR. WIATZKA:             Sorry.
  THE CHAIR:               -- for the record.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       In reviewing the original concept, basically,
  there was a material change, in terms of leaving all
  the waste rock at the mill site, at the mill site and
  then shaping it into a concentrated dome-type effect,
  and so we were concerned that we had the proper
  information to, both, assess the seepage
  characteristics of that material undercover and also
  that the cover design and the shape would be stable --
  erosionally stable for a longer period of time.
       Back in the technical meeting, LMI's consultants
  provided a concept, in general terms, and that provided
  insights into it, and we'd asked for them to provide a
  little more clarity in terms of how that translated to
  the actual site conditions, and LMI has provided the
  cross-sections, and as per the commitments provided
  earlier, has agreed to providing more information,
  another cross-section and some more details about how
  they would manage the surface runoffs from this site,
  with the primary concern being the long-term stability
  of the cover.  So with those commitments, we feel
  comfortable in the proposal.
       There's another element that talked about the
  seepages, and, again, as Godwin had mentioned earlier,
  based on their assessment the materials had oxidized
  and that they were flushing, and the current concept is
  to reduce the materials being flushed out to about 20
  percent of what they're currently doing now, and that's
  what the HHERA provided information on and what the
  potential impacts are from that, so we're satisfied in
  that regard.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead.  State your name before you speak.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Godwin
  Okonkwo, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
  Affairs Canada.
       So I'll carry on with the presentation.  So still
  dealing with the tailing and waste rock, we -- CIRNAC
  requested, from LMI, to provide an approach to
  demonstrate how LMI will deal with tailings that are
  exposed right now and tailings that may be exposed as
  water is lowered in the tailings management area,
  because we were wondering will they be moved to
  contained cells, or will they be left in place and
  covered, or will they just be ignored.
       So LMI responded through a provision of an initial
  decision matrix.  CIRNAC's review of the matrix at the
  time found it inappropriate for field determination.
       A revised decision matrix was provided, and by
  which LMI appeared to confirm -- we had a discussion
  yesterday about it, and they confirmed to us that it
  would be left in place and covered, and so we -- what
  we really just wanted with that was for LMI to provide,
  like, a further explanation of how the tailings will be
  managed or how they plan to manage it, and with the
  covered -- with their confirmation that it will be
  covered in -- on site, left on site and covered and
  their agreement, the commitment to -- within 60 days of
  licence approval, to provide, you know, further
  documents, it resolves this issue.  We think that issue
  has been resolved.
       And so the second category of issues was closure
  and reclamation planning, so the Human Health
  Ecological Risk Assessment.
       The Human Health Ecological Risk Assessment
  provided at the time did not include cover the tailings
  containment area until we suggest to give clarity on
  the objectives of the Human Health Ecological Risk
  Assessment.  It was to evaluate potential risk to human
  health and the environment from the contamination
  associated with the historical operation of the site as
  a gold mine in order to derive site-specific target
  levels for any potential risks identified and to use a
  site-specific target levels to define areas requiring
  remediation or risk management.
       What we would like to say about this because we --
  LMI's response had noted that ecological risk
  assessments of the tailings management area was
  completed in 2004 and resubmitted as part of the 2014
  licence renewal.  LMI also noted their commitment to
  provision of a post-closure monitoring plan following
  discussions with stakeholders one year after issuance
  of the licence.  CIRNAC has no outstanding issues in
  this regard.
       The second piece on closure reclamation plan is a
  geochemical -- geotechnical details of engineered
  structure.  I will defer to Gerd to present this piece,
  and then I can conclude the piece.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Yes.  With regard to long-term
  stability of the site, there were numerous --
  THE CHAIR:               Please state your name --
  MR. WIATZKA:             Sorry.  Gerd --
  THE CHAIR:               -- for the record.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Sorry.  Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       With regard to closure planning and the
  achievement of long-term stability, given that there
  were numerous dams on site, it's really important to
  understand which of those dams would require some
  additional work to ensure stability and erosional
  control.
       In the ICRP, there had been commitments made to
  stabilize.  Although the dams were deemed to be stable
  for most purposes, there was a commitment made to
  stabilize them using rip rap and at a 2-to-1 --
  2-to-5 -- 2.5-to-1 slope.  The current final closure
  plan had said that it would be done slightly
  differently, and so we expressed concerns in wanting to
  understand the details of how that would be done, both,
  from, sort of, a conceptual point of view and also from
  the physical engineering perspective so it can be tied
  into the costing assessment.
       We've gone through a series of iterations with
  LMI, in terms of asking for clarifications and getting
  the stability analysis and so on, and we still said,
  and as late as last night, that we'd like to have a few
  more details, a little more detail on the slopes, but
  in general, I think we're all in agreement that the 'K'
  and the 'M' dams are the ones that need resloping to
  ensure stability.
       We're looking at -- you know, at the kind of
  features.  What we would like to do is have enough
  detail on each of the elements that are required to be
  done that we can understand the long-term implications
  of these elements operating in a northern climate, and
  LMI has made commitments to providing those additional
  details to us, at least at the preliminary level, and
  then in the final engineering, whether it's the dome or
  whether it's the dams, in the final engineering
  drawings, there'll be, of course, the other
  opportunities to review those.  Again, the main issue
  was long-term stability, that we're looking at, and
  both from an overall point of view and from an erosion
  point of view.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Any more?  Go
  ahead.
  MR. OKONKWO:             So, again, Godwin,
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
  THE CHAIR:               State your name.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Godwin.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Oh, sorry.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Yeah.
       So my conclusion on this piece, yeah, so we are
  comfortable with LMI providing additional details
  within 60 days of licence approval; however, I do -- I
  do have a few questions -- one question around this.
       So we've received a lot of memos, and so our
  question at this time would be will this information in
  these memos be integrated into the closure plan, into
  the final closure plan, and at what time will that
  happen, and that question is for LMI.
       So, finally, the last issue is the reclamation
  security cost estimate, so we -- okay.  We did say --
  CIRNAC did say that we had insufficient explanation and
  information provided by LMI for reducing the costs in
  their last estimate, in the recent estimate they've
  done.  Based on that, the department has not been able
  to create a new reclamation estimate with the limited
  information.
       LMI has provided a little more information and has
  promised to provide even more information.  In our
  discussions with LMI, they also committed to providing
  a more detailed work plan because all of that ties into
  us being able to do that, you know, independent cost
  estimate.
       I was going to go into what the challenges of the
  cost estimate was, but at this stage, where they have
  agreed to provide more details, I may not go into some
  of the things I have in the presentation.
       The elements, though, I want to speak about is
  regardless of what they -- we -- so we've not done the
  estimating, the independent estimate.  We cannot say we
  agree with the estimate that's been done by LMI, and
  then even if -- even if an estimate is done, what
  CIRNAC's position is at this point is CIRNAC feels the
  Crown is undersecured with the site, and so at this
  time, our position will be that we hold the full
  security that we hold currently, and any release --
  because there are a lot of uncertainties.  There are a
  lot of details we don't know, and so our position is
  that we hold the security we hold fully, and any
  release that will be done on the security will be done
  based on the elements of the framework, the release
  framework they we're putting forward.  We're still
  trying to, you know, conclude that, but the key
  elements that CIRNAC has put in the framework that I
  will want to state at this time is that (1) we're
  requiring that progressive reclamation work is done
  based on milestones, and not just a task, and then when
  the work is done, dependent on what kind of work it is,
  we may need a letter from a mine site inspector, or
  dependent on the work, we will need a validation by,
  you know, through, like, a stamp from an engineer
  registered to practice in Nunavut.
       The other condition for progressive release would
  be that there is a demonstration that environmental
  liability to the Crown is reduced, and at that point,
  we can now consider the release of security.
       The other piece I needed to speak about in this
  is, yes, there is an element of the policy saying that
  the cost -- what it costs a third party to reclaim the
  site or do the work on the site should -- I think
  that's the basis of what the estimate is.  This is what
  LMI's contractor has estimated to do the work.
       While that is great for the Crown, the Crown wants
  to be -- the Crown does not want any liability.  The
  Crown will not have any liability on the site, so the
  way the Crown sees it is what we hold , we actually
  think we're undersecured, but what it will cost a third
  party to do it, but not just the way that LMI's
  contractor has done it because the estimation of the
  work to be done, that is done right now, does not take
  into consideration the unknowns, does not take into
  consideration, like, you know, some of the long-term
  issues that may happen, the environmental liability and
  all of that, so that -- that's the position that the
  Crown holds.  And so, finally, on this, I will say that
  the Crown will retain contingency amounts in case the
  site is not stabilized post-closure.
       So on the framework for progressive release, I
  already touched on that.  We're still working on that
  to finalize what that is, so just because I'm on this
  slide, I'll restate what the key CIRNAC positions are:
  The reclamation policy is for release of security to
  happen only upon completion of reclamation work in
  terms of milestones, validation through a stamp by an
  engineer certified to practice in Nunavut, or sometimes
  a letter of confirmation by mine-site inspectors, and a
  reduction of any and all environmental liability to the
  Crown -- yeah, Gerd just reminded me -- for that
  element, so it's not really ...  yeah.
       So in conclusion, we had three major outstanding
  issues:  The long-term stability of cover and dams, we
  think that's resolved; management of tailings exposed
  when water levels are lowered, we think that's
  resolved; the insufficient information for security
  estimation, that's partially resolved because we're
  getting information.  They've committed to providing
  information, but we're still not able, at this time, to
  provide a security estimate, but -- so I consider that
  partially resolved.
       So in conclusion, the department will support
  Lupin Mines renewal/amendment application when all the
  stated outstanding issues are resolved, and two have
  been resolved so far.  The last one we're trying to
  resolve, and we're hoping that we'll resolve them --
  the last piece before the end of the hearing.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, CIRNAC, for your
  presentation.
       Okay.  Open up for questions or comments.  Let's
  start with the Applicants.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for LMI.  Mr. Chair, can we just have a moment
  to confer?
  THE CHAIR:               Applicant, do you want to have
  a short break for your own purpose?
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  That
  would be very helpful.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  We'll take a break.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Should we continue?
       Okay.  CIRNAC had a presentation, and the
  Applicant is supposed to answer -- have questions and
  so on.  Go ahead, Applicant.
  Lupin Mines Incorporated Questions Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  We
  just have a few questions for Crown-Indigenous
  Relations.
       I just want to confirm with CIRNAC that based on
  the previous information on this file, that CIRNAC has
  produced at least two reclamation's estimates
  previously based on the information that was on file to
  that date.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Applicant.
       CIRNAC.
  MS. KOWBEL:              I should say at least two,
  Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.
       Okay.  State your name --
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka.
  THE CHAIR:               -- and speak a bit slower.  I
  want to just respect the interpreters.
       Thank you.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       I'm aware of one reclamation estimate that we did,
  and that was the basis for the Knight Piésold
  difference between LMI and our company's estimate, the
  Knight Piésold.  I'm not aware of a second one that
  we've done.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines.
       There was -- Mr. Chair, there was at least one
  other previous estimate, and we can give details of
  those.  Those are on part of the Water Board's registry
  as well, and it's just making the point that it is
  possible to provide -- to prepare these reclamation
  estimates.  I think that CIRNAC, sort of, misstated it
  a bit when they said it wasn't possible to produce an
  updated estimate.  They have done that before on the
  existing information, and so my next question for
  CIRNAC is, you know, I think that CIRNAC and Lupin
  Mines have been able to work together quite a bit in
  the last few years.  They've really been able to work a
  lot more collaboratively than the last time the company
  was before the Board on their water licence, and so I
  was just hoping that CIRNAC could agree that
  significant work is -- reclamation work has taken place
  at the Lupin mine site since 2016.  CIRNAC has refunded
  at least $8 million in security since 2016 in
  recognition of that work that has been completed.
  Lupin Mines also has already another $3 million in work
  that hasn't yet been refunded, and so I'd like to ask
  CIRNAC to confirm that significant work has been
  completed to -- towards reclaiming the Lupin mine site
  since 2016, since the Knight Piésold estimate.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       CIRNAC.
  MR. OKONKWO:             I'm aware that CIRNAC has had
  to return some money of some work done, but I can't --
  confirmation, the phrase "confirmation", I do not think
  I'm comfortable to say I will confirm that significant
  work has been done; however, in terms of a return, it
  is based on our policy.  We're standing based on our
  policy because we're going into final closure.  At this
  time, we're standing on our policy to say that any
  further release of security -- we're not saying we're
  not going to release security, but any further release
  of security has to be done based on the element of a
  framework, which is what we've stated.  The work is
  done.  There is confirmation the work is done.  There's
  validation that the work has been done, and there is
  evidence of reducing environmental liability to the
  Crown.  That would be the condition under which
  releases would be considered.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Do you have more questions?  Go ahead.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines.  Thank you, Mr.  Chair.  Just
  a few more short questions.
       So with respect to the final closure plan and the
  milestones document, I think those are also, too, two
  good pieces of evidence for the Board of the work that
  CIRNAC and LMI have been able to do together to give
  more detail, the detail that CIRNAC has been asking for
  on closure planning, and so I was hoping that CIRNAC
  could confirm our view that based at this point in
  time, more is known about the Lupin mine site than ever
  before, more is known about the very specific details
  about what would be carried out to reclaim the site,
  and that makes sense because as we've talked about,
  there is a contract in place.  There was very specific
  work going on this summer.  It's been going on quite
  intensively since 2016, and so I'd like to just ask
  CIRNAC to confirm that more is known about the site
  than ever known -- has been known before,
  notwithstanding that there is some other information,
  that we want to keep working with CIRNAC, and we'll
  keep providing information, but at this point in time,
  they know more than they've ever known before about
  the -- about the site.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       CIRNAC, go ahead.
  MR. OKONKWO:             So I'll take a response, and
  then maybe Gerd can support me.
       So, yes, I acknowledge CIRNAC knows more.  We have
  more details, we have more information, and then we
  will be able to do our own estimate.  You know, that's
  why I said this was partially resolved.  Like, you've
  committed to giving us more information.  You have
  given us more information, but, however, I just needed
  to make it clear of what CIRNAC's position is in terms
  of the security that we hold because even if we do
  an -- even if we are accepting the estimate they're
  doing for the work they will do, it may not return --
  it may not result in us asking that a difference is
  returned because the Crown has to be fully secured.
       There's a lot of contingency.  There's a lot of
  unknowns.  There's issues around post-closure
  monitoring.  When you find out site is not stable, what
  do you do.  There are a few more things that are not --
  we think are not planned or captured, which is the
  reason why we're decide -- we were suggesting or
  recommending that we retain the full security we hold,
  and we release it based on the elements of a security
  framework.
       I think I'll defer to Gerd maybe to add more
  details about some of the unknowns.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       Yeah, definitely, you've provided -- done more
  work and provided information addressing some of the
  fundamental concerns with that, so there's -- there's
  no question about that.  Having said that, there are
  still some unknowns.
       So, for example, just in the discussions earlier
  in responses to meeting this -- being -- having a
  stable site, water quality objectives being met.  It
  was stated that if you don't -- if they're not met, you
  may have to treat again.
       We don't know what the performance measure will be
  when the actual closure works are done and complete.
  If they're done and complete, then the performance
  measurement -- and the performance measure's met, then
  there'll be no more questions, but if they're not met,
  you know, what are the implications of that beyond
  Year 2.  What is the capacity in your current water
  management system to contain infer -- contain the
  material?  Do you have to put -- do you have to go back
  and do one more campaign of water treatment?  Do you
  have to go back and do two more campaigns of water
  treatment?  Those are still unknowns at this point in
  time.
       We don't know how much, and I don't think --
  correct me, I can't remember, but I don't think we have
  a cost element for covering potentially exposed
  tailings, so that's not in the current estimate, I
  don't believe, so correct me if I'm wrong on that one,
  but those are the kind of -- that's not a contingency
  on the elements that we're talking about that we agree
  in terms of the framework and that we've agreed in
  terms of the milestones, but there are still unknowns
  with the site in executing the work.  There are still
  risks associated with that, and my understanding is
  that those risks are something that the Crown wants to
  be protected against.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Applicant, go ahead.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       So I think those are -- I'm just going to confer
  with my client, but I think those are our questions.  I
  just did want to flag something for Mr. Chair, which is
  that we think that there might still be some confusion
  based on something CIRNAC said in their presentation
  about contingencies, and I think their consultant just
  alluded to some of that conclusion now.
       Lupin Mines has included quite a large contingency
  for unknowns, for issues that -- of the type that are
  being raised, but we are mindful in the process that
  this is our time to ask questions, not give evidence,
  and so we'll -- what we're planning to do is to speak
  to that more in the reply section, when we get to that
  part of the hearing, just to give a bit more detail
  because probably that would help a lot of people to
  explain the contingency and explain how the estimate
  addresses those issues, because we agree those are very
  important issues, and we just wanted to reassure
  everybody that those were covered, we believe, with the
  existing estimate.
       And then the other thing we've been -- I've been
  asked to speak to is that a question was asked in part
  of CIRNAC's presentation.  Just for clarity, I want to
  confirm that the additional information is being
  provided to CIRNAC for their information purposes and
  to fulfill their information needs.  At this time, the
  company's not proposing to update the closure plan
  based on that additional information, and so those are
  just two statements.
       I just would like a chance to confer before I --
  to confirm if we have any more questions.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.
       Mr. Chair, those are all of our questions.  Thank
  you very much.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Any more for CIRNAC?
  MR. OKONKWO:             So we -- CIRNAC just expects
  that if this is final closure, going into final
  closure, that the final closure plan should be as
  detailed as possible with activities of what you're
  going to do, when you're going to do them, and that
  builds into, also, the cost estimate and all that, too,
  but, however, that's all we need to say.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Okay.  Applicant, you're done with your
  questioning?
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       We have no further questions for CIRNAC at this
  time, but we will provide additional information upon
  reply.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Now I'd like to ask Environment and Climate Change
  Canada if you have questions or comments to CIRNAC
  presentation?
  MS. WALKER:              Yeah.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Eva Walker of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
  We have no questions.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Environment and
  Climate Change Canada.
       Is there any member of the public have any
  questions to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
  Affairs?
       Okay.  I take that there's none.
       Does the Water Board staff have questions?  Go
  ahead, Karén.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Just a few clarification or
  confirmation from CIRNAC, please.
       Before break, we were provided with this milestone
  framework, including the total cost as 23 million
  600-something thousand, and I heard that CIRNAC is
  still requesting or asking that the current security
  that is included within the licence shall be
  maintained, which is the -- the number is different.
  It's 26 million something, yes.
       Could you confirm, yes, what is the position, INAC
  [sic] position -- CIRNAC position, please?
  MR. OKONKWO:             So Godwin, Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
       So that is CIRNAC's position.  We want to retain
  the 26, so the -- the milestones document you have,
  we've worked on it based on a framework to release
  security.  We haven't worked on it to accept the
  estimate on that -- on that spreadsheet.  We don't know
  enough.  That's what we're saying.  We have some more
  information, but within 24 hours, we wouldn't do an
  estimate; but what we're saying is in terms of -- so
  I'll make it clear.  In terms of what we -- the
  reclamation, the whole 26, CIRNAC's position is that we
  retain that 26 and only release it based on the
  elements of the framework, how we decide the -- the few
  things we will check off, and so that spreadsheet was
  done based on, like, the release framework.  It wasn't
  done based on this is the estimate, accept the final
  estimate.
       Thank you.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  To clarify one more time, Mr. Chair.
       So CIRNAC position is that this milestone is used
  for the release of security, also basis for release;
  however, CIRNAC doesn't accept this as status quo, this
  milestone document as a security that should be stated
  as a basis for the licence, potential licence?
  MR. OKONKWO:             So thank you.  Godwin,
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
       So, like, your question was not very clear, but
  maybe I'll try to answer it this way:  So that
  spreadsheet you have, the essence of the spreadsheet
  was to work on, like, a release of security, the
  mechanism for release, and so, like, what kind of
  evidence do we need, what kind of line items are they
  and all of that, but in terms of the estimate, like,
  while we're not saying the estimate is not good.  The
  estimate -- like, okay, assuming the estimate is great,
  but what the Crown -- what the Crown -- what we're
  saying is that the Crown does not want to be
  undersecured.
       So, like, even if the estimate is 23 million, and
  we hold 26, CIRNAC wants -- we want to hold that 26 and
  only release any security based on the element of the
  framework such as the work is done, is validated, is
  confirmed.  There's a reduction in environmental
  liability, so I -- I'm not -- I don't know if I
  answered your question.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.  Thank you, CIRNAC.
  Karén Kharatyan from Water Board.
       I am still confused a little bit, that CIRNAC
  accept the mechanism of releasing based on this
  milestone, but it seems doesn't accept the number,
  figure, dollar number 23 million, because if your
  position is that 26 should be within the licence, that
  means that this 23 million is not acceptable , okay,
  but I heard you, and now I am going -- I am going to
  ask another confirmation about contingency.
       There is a contingency item when CIRNAC stated
  that this contingency shall be maintained by CIRNAC
  until post-closure monitoring, the question is whether
  they did mean this contingency item included within the
  milestone, or there are other contingency, like, within
  maybe -- within contractor in the Act that we are not
  aware?
  MR. OKONKWO:             So thank you.  Godwin,
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
  I'll give you the first part of my response, and then
  I'll defer to Gerd to give you some more.
       So what I did say in my presentation was that the
  Crown has to retain money for contingency.  The idea is
  for any unknowns.  For instance, you do post-closure
  monitoring, if you have any surprises, who does the
  work, like, you know?  So -- so I use it as a general
  term of contingencies for all unknowns, but for a
  little more specific contingencies, maybe Gerd can name
  off the ...
  MR. WIATZKA:             I think within -- and there
  may be some confusion here, as well, but within the --
  within the model that you were given, there's a
  contingency line which I believe is somewhere in the
  order of 500,000, and I think what we're looking at
  there is releasing that component, because it's tied
  directly to the spreadsheet and the elements, so --
  and, you know, as LMI has pointed out to us, that if
  they're only getting release on funds based on
  verification that an activity has been done, and it
  meets the intended environmental reduction, then
  we're in agreement that you release those elements,
  both the directs, the indirects, on the directs, and
  the general indirects, including contingency.  We're
  happy with that.
       I think what INAC's position is saying there is
  some funds in there now that they believe would be
  useful if that -- if the current estimate -- we haven't
  verified the current estimate in and of itself, but if
  that's appropriate, then there's still a comfort --
  they would like to have something there for unknowns,
  which is not in there, and so, you know, you've reduced
  the engineering because you're closer to it.  You've
  reduced the contingency because you're closer to it,
  but there is still such items as the water treatment,
  if you needed more, that if -- it would be a
  significant cost, and it would be a significant cost if
  you needed to put in a winter road, if you needed to
  get something in after the fact, so there is some risk
  associated with performance of the works in the long
  term, and I think that's where the Crown is
  uncomfortable.
       And so the elements itself that we've identified
  and talked about, we don't -- we're not uncomfortable
  with those.  We think that they're pretty reasonable,
  and the information provided, since our original
  review, which did not give us insights into how those
  numbers were coming about, especially many of the
  larger lump-sum type items, I think we've been provided
  with good information there.
       LMI has broken out, in this particular
  spreadsheet, so, for example, the mob and demob, which
  is a one-line item, has now been broken out so that we
  can assign the mobilization to work that will be done.
  We can assign elements to transport and worker costs to
  work that can be done, and that's what the framework is
  intended to do, and it relieves the Crown of having
  liability for demob, because that has been pulled out,
  so there's a lot of very positive things about the
  framework and the model that it sits now.  We just say
  there are still some unknowns in terms, in spite of the
  fact we've gone much further, so there's still some
  unknowns, and there should be some allowance for those
  unknowns.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.
       Any further comments/questions?
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, thank you
  Mr. Chair.
       One more small clarification about release of
  these progressive security amount, I would say, by
  validation of engineer registered in Nunavut, whether
  you mean a third-party engineer or the engineer could
  be LMI engineer?
  MR. WIATZKA:             Well, it depends on what --
  Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
  THE CHAIR:               State your name for the
  record.  Thank you.
  MR. WIATZKA:             It depends on what element it
  is, so, you know, some elements require more stringent
  sign-off, and that's what has been identified in the
  document.  Others, we would be satisfied by their
  resident engineers, their comp -- saying that here's
  evidence that it was built in such a manner, and it was
  in -- it was consistent with the drawings, and that's
  where, again, from a CIRNAC point of view, we wanted to
  make sure that we understood the design basis so that
  when the work was done, that we could say, yes, we've
  done it the way it had been planned, and you have
  evidence that's appropriate to the work, and so, again,
  there may be some things that require a stamped
  independent engineer.  There may be some things that
  are -- that's fine as long as it's done by someone from
  staff, so -- and we're flexible on that, and I think we
  can work with LMI on that to ensure that those things
  can get addressed in an expedient manner.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, thank you,
  Mr. Chair, and thank you, CIRNAC, for clarification.
       Hopefully, once we have this progressive release
  of security framework, we will get a little more clear
  or less confused.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Okay.  Thank you.
       Now we'll move on to Board panel members.  Is
  there any comments?  Okay.  Amanda.
  Nunavut Water Board Panel Questions Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Koana, Ikkhivautaq.  Amanda
  Hanson Main, panel member.  Thank you to CIRNAC for the
  presentation.
       Godwin, you'd mentioned you -- that the department
  hasn't been able to do -- to conduct its own
  independent cost estimate, reclamation estimate, and
  we've heard that there's some information that's been
  provided and more is yet to come, including a work
  plan.  Can you clarify, with a bit more detail, what is
  required to allow the department to conduct its own
  estimate?
       Koana.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  State your name,
  for the record.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       I think we've got to agreement with LMI that the
  items that had been listed earlier, some of the design
  details.  I mean, they provided us with quite a bit of
  additional information in the last 15 days, so -- and
  we've identified what we'd still like to see, and the
  bottom line is what we're -- what we'd like to know
  is -- we have to be able to independently say, okay, if
  they're doing this, this is the quantities.  This would
  be the cost independent, and how does it tie in, and so
  in some of the -- in some of the -- in some of the
  earlier documents, there was a lack of that, and in
  some cases, we also had a difference of opinion of what
  to do, but I think all those have been materially
  addressed, and we're closer now than -- subject to
  getting some more information to being able to do that.
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Thank you for the response.
       Are you able to provide that information to the
  Board?  Is that something that you have discussed --
  sorry, Mr. Chair, Amanda Hanson Main.
       Are these requirements something that LMI and
  CIRNAC have discussed outside of the Board's Public
  Registry, and if so, is it something that you could
  provide to us for our information, if there is a list
  of items that have been considered and items that you
  still deem necessary and that both parties are in
  agreement to?
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       I think what we've discussed are the elements that
  we're looking to get information on.  We have not
  discussed, actually, any specifics of us doing our own
  independent.  We've been looking more at the framework
  and identifying those elements that LMI has identified
  and coming through and saying, yes, this is the kind of
  thing they're looking for, and here's the release
  mechanism, and so we've been focusing, as Godwin said,
  on the release mechanisms for that and information
  needed to help us understand what that is, so we
  haven't looked at in the context of doing an
  independent estimate at the moment.
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Thank you.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Excuse me, Mr. Chair?  Sorry.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines.
       I just thought to clarify what CIRNAC just said,
  the outstanding items are very specifically described
  and agreed between Lupin Mines and CIRNAC in the
  exhibit that we filed that was read in by Ms. Lewis at
  the beginning of this session, and so those are the
  very specific items that CIRNAC has told LMI that were
  outstanding, and we've fulfilled all of those -- all
  those -- we made commitments to fulfill those
  information requirements; and so if you look at
  those -- if you look at that exhibit, and you heard
  Ms. Lewis earlier, those are -- they got into quite a
  bit of detail about longitudinal and technical aspects
  that CIRNAC's consultant is looking for, so just to
  clarify it, I think -- I think maybe what was said was
  a bit of misspoke.  I think we do have agreement on
  what was outstanding.  Thank you.
       And for clarity, the one thing that is still
  outstanding that we have not provided to the Board yet
  because it is still a work in progress is the agreed
  joint submission on the framework, which, certainly,
  the parties are still working on and will endeavour to
  get to the Board as soon as possible.
  Nunavut Water Board Panel Questions Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Thank you for that response,
  and once I have a chance to look at the laptop, I will
  certainly --
  THE CHAIR:               State your name.
  MS. HANSON:              Amanda Hanson Main, panel
  member, thanks.
       You'll appreciate that once I get back to the
  computer to have a look at that commitment list, I will
  certainly be able to confirm that.  Thank you.
       So another question to CIRNAC.  It was mentioned
  during the presentation that the Crown feels unsecured
  with respect to the site and therefore a wish to hold
  the full security that you have currently.  I just want
  to confirm or have you confirm for me with the current
  security and given the reclamation plan as it stands
  now, the Crown feels unsecured with its current
  holding?  Is that correct, or are you looking at -- the
  Crown feels that it's unsecured going forward without a
  cost estimate in place or without certain aspects.
  That statement was made, and I just to clarify what the
  context was and how that could be rectified.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Teresa.
  Discussion
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       It's my understanding that the phone line has just
  gone down, so we may want to take a pause until we can
  verify that the phone line is back up, given that
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada's legal counsel is on that phone line, and we
  are asking questions of them, so, Mr. Chair, perhaps we
  should just take a brief adjournment until the
  phone-like access is restored.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah, thank you.  Let's take a
  break for a minute to get this up and running.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  We should continue on.
  Now I think the telephones are hooked up now, working
  now.  All right.
       Okay.  Yeah, technical issues a bit.  Okay.
  There's someone on the line, so I believe it's legal
  counsel for INAC -- CIRNAC, sorry, so go ahead, please.
  MR. KOHLENBERG:          Dale Kohlenberg, Justice
  counsel.  Hello.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Hello, Dale.  We can hear you.  Thanks very much
  for bearing with us while we get the phone line
  restored, so we'll now go to the response from
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
  MR. OKONKWO:             So Godwin, Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.  I'm trying to
  get Gerd to come up with the records of when we had
  done an estimate -- an estimate before, but the two
  past estimates that were done before now, so there was
  the -- the Knight Piésold estimate.  It was -- it was
  higher than what we're holding right now, I think about
  40 something, and the one that Arcadis had done for us
  at the time I think was 30 something, so --
  MR. WIATZKA:             I think it was the other way
  around.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Oh, the other way around,
  yeah, well, but it was still higher, though, so -- and
  then to correct my statement, I didn't say that the
  Crown was unsecured.  The Crown was undersecured.
  Like, we feel that way, and so at this point, we don't
  really have -- we don't have any quarrels with the
  estimate that LMI has done.  We're just saying that we
  haven't done our own independent estimate.  That's what
  that is, but, however, what we're comfortable with is
  that we hold onto the entire security estimate we have,
  security we have at this stage, and the release would
  be upon the element of release, progressive release
  framework; and I mentioned some of those elements.
       So one is the work is done.  There's a validation,
  and validation -- I mentioned the ways that validation
  can happen, and the part I forgot to add to it is we
  also committed to have our inspectors, our field
  inspectors, acknowledge what has been done, and then
  environmental liability is reduced, we can consider a
  release of security.
       I don't know if Dale wants to add anything else,
  but thank you.
  MR. KOHLENBERG:          No, I have nothing to add to
  that, Godwin.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       So we have a panel member on questioning, to
  continue on questioning.  Go ahead, Amanda.
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Koana, Ikkhivautaq.  Amanda
  Hanson Main, panel member.
       I thank you for that response, and I appreciate
  also the clarification.  You did say "undersecured" and
  not "unsecured".  I apologize.
       If I can just confirm that the current holding at
  26 million security does not have the Crown feeling
  undersecured at 26 million, subject to the progressive
  release framework, that you are not feeling
  undersecured in general?
       Thank you.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Okay.  Godwin,
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
       So I'll choose to answer it this way:  At 26,
  we're not feeling undersecured, but the idea is if we
  have to go with an estimate that gets us to reduce that
  right off the bat, before -- like, even at the point,
  we're uncomfortable with -- so if an estimate has been
  done for 20 million, for instance, we now say, oh,
  we're holding too much, so we now have to refund 6
  before you even start.  The Crown would be very
  uncomfortable with that.  That's the position I'm
  trying to state.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Go ahead, Applicant.
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines.
       I just thought it might be helpful.  LMI isn't
  asking for a $20 million estimate.  I'll just ask Karyn
  to confirm the number.  Just so everybody's clear on
  the number, it's not -- it's not 20 million and asking
  for 6 back, it's --
  MS. LEWIS:               He wasn't.  He was just making
  a ...
  MS. KOWBEL:              Yeah, but just clarify for
  everybody what the -- what the number is.
  MS. LEWIS:               It's approximately 23.3, I
  believe.  My computer just died.  Sorry.
  Nunavut Water Board Panel Questions Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Thank you for the reply.
  Koana, Ikkhivautaq.  Amanda Hanson Main, again, panel
  member.
       One short follow-up question to that would be if
  the Crown is able to complete its own estimate, and the
  number is lower, that then the amount that you would
  like to hold may be subject to revision; is that
  correct?
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Go ahead, CIRNAC.
  MR. OKONKWO:             At this time, like, if
  we're -- if at any time we're able to do an estimate,
  estimates have been done in the past, though, and
  Arcadis was one of those who had done the estimates for
  us in the past.  At the time we did the estimate, I
  don't know -- can I please ask him a question?
  MR. WIATZKA:             Hi.  It's Gerd Wiatzka from
  Arcadis.
       I was just looking in my files, and I believe
  there have been several estimates starting in 2014.
  The LMI 2014 estimate was 24 million.  We, as Arcadis,
  did an estimate in 2015 that was roughly double that,
  at 45 million.  Knight Piésold, I think as part of the
  Board's recommendation, was brought in as an
  independent third party and came up with an estimate in
  2016 at 35 million, and now we're -- we've gone through
  a couple of different of iterations from LMI from 21
  million to 20 million to 23.3 million, and so for us,
  the challenge has always been we weren't sure because
  the earlier estimates were based on the ICRP.  The
  newer estimates were based a diff -- on a version
  initially of a draft of a final closure plan, and then,
  you know, basically, there was another estimate on that
  draft final closure plan.  So one of our struggles was
  always to try to understand what the actual work
  elements are so that we don't bias it one way or
  another thinking what there are, you know; and so --
  so, again, it's not that we can't do an estimate, but
  in the structure, first, we have to understand what
  they're looking at doing so we can compare that, and
  that was partly the big issue between doing nothing on
  the tailings dam, doing something on the tailings dam,
  doing all of the tailings dam, doing part of the
  tailings dam, et cetera, et cetera, so those were the
  numbers that we were wrestling with; and if we do it
  based on the reclaim model, which is independent of
  their activity, the way it's structured for the
  release, then we have to have certain other things we
  have to know about that.
       So it's not that we can't do it, and it's -- it --
  the bigger issues, in our estimate, had been the use of
  fuel and some of the uncertainties, and those have all
  been addressed, so we're not -- we're not talking about
  materially different costs.  You know, you're looking
  at, here, you know, CIRNAC saying 26 million is what
  they hold.  They'd like to keep holding that, and LMI
  has said we've got 23 million, and we'd like to get
  releases on those, and we've been working on the fact
  that they need releases and focusing on how we can get
  releases on an agreed-to basis, and there's a gap in --
  obviously in the numbers at the moment, without doing
  an independent estimate, between 23.3 and 26, so you're
  looking at that difference.
       I don't think, at the end of the day, that should
  be significant enough to hold things up, but I can't
  say that -- I can't speak for CIRNAC.  If I come up
  with an estimate that's 27 million or 25, it would come
  back to a discussion of it.  I think the real focus
  should be on what's needed to move ahead with --
  because CIRNAC has the security at the moment.  You
  have the elements of release, so you can actually do
  something and get going on it, and then define it as
  you -- as you go further into it.
       Within the first year, your current plan -- and up
  until now, we have not seen your more detailed
  schedule, right, so that just came.  That was just done
  now, so now we know that you're looking at dewatering,
  basically doing your water treatment in 2020.  So if
  you're doing a water treatment in 2020, you will have
  some understanding of what, if any, spilled tailings
  are outside of the containment.  That will inform you,
  in terms of what you need to do there, and is there a
  cost element associated with that, and I think right
  now, it's a zero cost element.
       So, again, there's things we can learn.  I don't
  think it should be something that would stop you from
  going ahead and coming to an agreement on the framework
  and then working your way through it as you move, and
  you'll have a substantive amount of work done in
  Year 1, and I think you can move positively ahead with
  that.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, CIRNAC.
       Amanda, continue.
  MS. HANSON MAIN:         Koana, Ikkhivautaq.  Amanda
  Hanson Main, panel member.  I thank you for the
  response and additional information.
       You mentioned the framework.  We heard from your
  representative the three -- sort of, the three items in
  that framework that we'd be looking for release, or
  that you would be considering for a release.  The third
  one was a demonstration of -- a demonstratable
  reduction in environmental liability to the -- to the
  Crown, and I'm wondering if, at this point, you can
  walk us through how that demonstration would be --
  would be documented?  What type of demonstration in the
  reduction of environmental liability are you looking
  for or would you be looking for?  Would that be through
  monitoring results or some other process that we are
  privy to discuss today?
       Thank you.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       There's different elements to it, so, for example,
  in demolition of buildings, you would have a specific
  building, and it would say a hundred -- a hundred
  thousand to demolish this building, so that would be a
  line of evidence that, both, on -- on the inspector
  being there, the visual photographs, the building's
  gone, it's been put wherever, that you can release
  that, and that's pretty straightforward; and the things
  that come with that, the indirects and the directs, the
  direct overheads and the indirects of camp and all that
  would be proportionate to that component's value
  against the direct -- all the total direct value as
  defined in the current -- in the current spreadsheet,
  so that hundred thousand would then have some other
  costs that would be released against that, so those are
  pretty straightforward.
       And the -- some of our reasons for getting the
  technical questions and trying to make sure we had
  something there to give it is that when it's in the
  field, when they've done the work, that we can actually
  not argue about what would the work -- and we would
  have liked to have done this way or that way, whatever.
  It's enough that we can say, yes, the work has been
  done, and so we're trying to make that as
  straightforward as possible.
       In other things like the cover, for example, on
  the dome, we physically know that they'll have put the
  cover on.  That will be visual evidence.  That'll be
  confirmed by their site.  I think the release
  criteria's that we said, okay, it's got to be a 1-metre
  cover.  You will have evidence of that cover.  You will
  have an engineer sign off on that cover, and that will
  provide the evidence that that cover has been built as
  proposed and designed.
       Now, we're still going to have long-term
  monitoring to confirm that the cover is actually
  performing, so on the one hand, we're releasing the
  funds for the cover in that particular case because it
  has been construction [sic], but there is an
  expectation that it will actually perform, but that's
  what the monitoring will verify; and the same with the
  tailings, that we'll say, okay, the tailings were going
  to be the dams that need stabilization.  Additional
  materials have been constructed in a way as planned and
  as shown.  We can sign off on the fact that they have
  been done, that there's an engineer that's seen it
  being constructed and compacted, and all those things
  that come with normal engineering and construction, and
  then we're happy with that.
       Now, when you stop dropping the water down, the
  fact that it's stable doesn't mean that the whole
  system is geochemically stable.  We're talking about
  physical stability, your chemical stability, right, and
  so there's a different level of performance.  So we're
  not going to hold LMI on the construction of the dam to
  say, well, until we get this -- we'll pay for that,
  right, because it will have been constructed as
  planned, but if you need a second round of water
  treatment before it stabilizes, there -- that has
  nothing to do with that element.  That's an unknown
  right now, and the assumption is that you don't.
       In the current system -- in the current estimate,
  the assumption is a one-time water treatment, and
  that's it.  Now, is that sufficient?  Maybe.  We're not
  arguing it, but -- so it may need -- it may need more,
  but we're not suggesting that in and of itself, but
  those are the other kind of elements to it, so we want
  to get and agree upon a release mechanism with LMI that
  gives them credit for the work they do, and the intent
  of that work, if it's been done right, should be to
  reduce future long-term -- in the case of the dams,
  long-term stability and erosion, minimize that, right.
  And so if they're constructed as planned, they should
  do that, but monitoring will show if something goes, if
  you end up having it sloughed out for whatever reason,
  there was something, there was an ice lens or whatever,
  who knows, that -- your long-term monitoring will
  identify that, and that may be a liability in the
  future.  It may not be.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Any further questions?  Alex?  No.  Okay.  Thank
  you.
       Okay.  Thank you, CIRNAC, for your presentation.
  I think, yeah, we're done.  We're done.  I think
  everybody's already gone through questioning on that.
       Okay.  The timing is, kind of -- we'll have a
  night session tonight at 7:00, so we'll have to call
  Environment and Climate Change Canada for next to have
  a presentation, but should we take a break now before
  we take the Community Session tonight?
       So for Environment and Climate Change Canada, you
  will have your presentation in the morning at 9:00.
  That will be your time because the time for today is,
  kind of, getting tight now.
       Okay.  Yeah, we might as well take a break now to
  get ready for tonight.  Thank you.
  _______________________________________________________
  PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL 7:00 PM
  _______________________________________________________

  

  

  
  CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT:
  
       I, Julie Albert, 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 26th day of January 2020.

  
  ________________________________
  Julie Albert, CSR(A)
  Official Court Reporter