NUNAVUT WATER BOARD

  

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

  
  
  ___________________________________________________
                         HEARING
                         VOLUME 3
  ___________________________________________________

  

  
                    Kugluktuk, Nunavut
                     January 16, 2020
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  
  Description                                       Page
  
  January 16, 2020         Morning Session          231
  Opening Remarks                                   234
  Presentation by Environment and Climate Change    235
  Canada
  Lupin Mines Incorporated Questions Environmental  245
  and Climate Change Canada
  Questions for Environmental and Climate Change    247
  Canada by Community Representatives
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated           249
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs   257
  Canada Questions Lupin Mines Incorporated
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines   264
  Incorporated
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions               267
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated           268
  Discussion                                        268
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines   271
  Incorporated and Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs Canada
  
  Closing Remarks by Crown-Indigenous Relations and 279
  Northern Affairs Canada
  Closing Remarks by Environment and Climate Change 280
  Canada
  Closing Remarks by Lupin Mines Incorporated       280
  Certificate of Transcript                         290

                         EXHIBITS
  Description                                       Page
  
  EXHIBIT 22 - Hard Copy, PowerPoint Presentation,  235
  Lupin Mine Presentation to the Nunavut Water Board
  by Environment and Climate Change Canada
  (Technical Comments) (English/Inuinnaqtun)
  
  EXHIBIT 23 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary         235
  Final Written Submission to the Nunavut Water
  Board from Environment and Climate Change Canada,
  Lupin Mine Incorporated - Lupin Mine Project
  (English/French)

  

  EXHIBIT 24 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary         235
  Final Written Submission to the Nunavut Water
  Board from Environment and Climate Change Canada,
  Lupin Mine Incorporated - Lupin Mine Project
  (Inuinnaqtun)
  
  EXHIBIT 25 - Electronic Copy, Updated Reclamation 256
  Security Estimate (NOTE: Mathematical error in
  Exhibit 15 corrected) (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 26 - Electronic Copy, Updated Security    256
  Reduction Schedule Dated January 16, 2020
  (English)
  
  EXHIBIT 27 - Electronic Copy, Joint Submission by 278
  Lupin Mines Incorporated and Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada Regarding
  Security Reduction Schedule (English)

  

  

  Proceedings taken at Kugluktuk Recreation Complex,
  Kugluktuk, Nunavut
  _______________________________________________________
  January 16, 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
  
  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 9:01 AM)
  Opening Remarks
  THE CHAIR:               Good morning.  Continue on
  with our agenda from yesterday's public sitting.  We
  are on Item 11 in our agenda, presentation by
  Intervenors.  We didn't get into Environment and
  Climate Change Canada yesterday, so we may start, first
  thing to start with this, this morning.
       So all set to go?  Go ahead.  Thank you.
       Before we go on, I saw a hand raised by legal
  counsel.  Teresa.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       Mr. Chair, I just have a couple of procedural
  matters.  I'm just going to mark the -- as exhibits the
  presentation materials that Environment and Climate
  Change Canada has filed with the Board and their
  presentation materials in English and Inuinnaqtun, so
  one version of the presentation which has both
  languages on that version, and the executive summary in
  English, French, and Inukitut, and Inuinnaqtun, so I'll
  be marking those as the next exhibits in the public
  hearing, and those are my procedural matters,
  Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Teresa.
       EXHIBIT 22 - Hard Copy, PowerPoint
       Presentation, Lupin Mine Presentation to the
       Nunavut Water Board by Environment and
       Climate Change Canada (Technical Comments)
       (English/Inuinnaqtun)
       EXHIBIT 23 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary
       Final Written Submission to the Nunavut Water
       Board from Environment and Climate Change
       Canada, Lupin Mine Incorporated - Lupin Mine
       Project (English/French)
       EXHIBIT 24 - Hard Copy, Executive Summary
       Final Written Submission to the Nunavut Water
       Board from Environment and Climate Change
       Canada, Lupin Mine Incorporated - Lupin Mine
       Project (Inuinnaqtun)
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Go ahead, Climate
  Change -- Environment and Climate Change Canada.  Go
  ahead.
  Presentation by Environment and Climate Change Canada
  MS. WALKER:              Eva Walker with Environment
  and Climate Change Canada.  Good morning, Mr. Chair,
  Board members, Elders, community members, the Board
  Staff, and other parties that have joined us here
  today.
       My name is Eva Walker, and I'm a senior
  environmental assessment coordinator with Environment
  and Climate Change Canada.  With me today, I have Anne
  Wilson, our lead water quality expert.
       In this presentation, we will summarize the
  department's final written submission, along with
  responses provided by the Proponent since the final
  written submission was provided to the Nunavut Water
  Board on December 16th.
       I must also apologize.  We received LMI's final
  submission after sending the presentation for
  translation, so the status of all the comments has
  changed to "resolved".
       To start off, I will go through Environment and
  Climate Change Canada's mandate, briefly touch upon the
  relevant Acts and legislation that govern our mandate.
  For each of the comments from our technical and final
  submissions, we'll have a slide that outlines each of
  the comments and associated recommendations.
       Under the Department of Environment Act, the
  powers, duties, and functions of the Minister of
  Environment and Climate Change extend to such matters
  as the preservation and enhancement of the quality of
  the natural environment, including water, air, and soil
  quality, and the coordination of relevant policies and
  programs of the Government of Canada; renewable
  resources, including migratory birds and other
  non-domestic flora and fauna; meteorology; and the
  enforcement of rules and regulations.
       Environment and Climate Change Canada's mandate is
  governed by the Department of the Environment Act, the
  Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Pollution
  Prevention Provision of the Fisheries Act, the
  Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Species at Risk
  Act.
       Environment and Climate Change Canada submitted
  seven technical comments to the Nunavut Water Board.
  Based on the responses from and additional discussions
  with Lupin Mines Incorporated, Environment and Climate
  Change Canada considers all our technical comments
  resolved with commitments by Lupin Mine to conduct
  post-closure monitoring.
       Anne and I will provide a summary of our technical
  comments and additional comment -- and an additional
  comment on water -- water licence in the following
  slides.
       So Environment and Climate Change Canada's
  Technical Comment 1 recommended that the Proponent
  provide further information on the sources, rationale,
  and details of the climate-change information provided
  in the final closure and reclamation plan from July
  2018.  Environment and Climate Change Canada
  recommended that the Proponent provide relevant climate
  projections for the region to the end of the century
  from a range of emission scenarios for multiple climate
  models to reflect uncertainty in future climate
  projections.
       Environment and Climate Change Canada provided
  further clarification by email to the Proponent at the
  end of August regarding time frames for the scenarios
  and further directed the Proponent to Environment and
  Climate Change Canada's Canada's Changing Climate
  Report.
       The Proponent's response to Environment and
  Climate Change Canada's Technical Comment 1 and
  Commitment 13 from the technical meeting stated that
  they considered low emission scenarios and average
  emission scenarios to be more realistic scenarios based
  on comparisons with observed warming.
       Similarity in warming rates with the observational
  record and low emission scenarios cannot be used to
  conclude that they are more realistic than other
  scenarios.  Scenarios are not predictions.  Instead,
  they represent future possible conditions based on
  global-scale economic considerations, which scenario is
  considered has implications on assumptions related to
  active layer and thaw-depth modelling.  Environment and
  Climate Change Canada notes it's important that all
  potential future scenarios, emissions scenarios, and
  their implications are considered at closure and
  post-closure and contingencies are developed based on
  these scenarios.
       ECC [sic] considers this comment resolved based on
  responses and clarifications received from the
  Proponent.  ECC does continue to recommend the
  Proponent consider all emission scenarios in their
  modelling from all mine components.
       I will now turn the presentation over to Anne
  Wilson, our water quality expert support.
       Thank you.
  MS. WILSON:              Good morning.  Anne Wilson,
  ECCC.
       So I'll present the next six slides on the
  remaining technical comments, plus our comment on the
  draft water licence framework.
       So ECCC Technical Comment 2 regarding the tailings
  closure approach and monitoring recommended that LMI
  conduct field investigations to validate the
  performance of the tailings cover so far, and this was
  done on summer 2019, and we were provided with a report
  in October.  The work involved excavation of two test
  pits in Cell 1 and Cell 2, standpipe water quality was
  sampled, and it was concluded that the cover appeared
  to be functioning as it should.  ECCC does note that
  monitoring in the post-closure phase is going to have
  to be robust enough to identify any changes to the
  performance of a tailings cover system.  Currently, LMI
  proposes monthly monitoring during the passive closure
  period over a five-year duration and then gradually
  decreasing the frequency of site inspections or
  specific monitoring requirements based on the test
  results confirming the predictions of chemical and
  physical stability.  If results are not as predicted,
  then additional monitoring and/or remediation works
  will be undertaken by the Proponent.
       ECCC considers the request for field
  investigations to be resolved and recommends that the
  details of the tailings containment area monitoring be
  included in the post-closure monitoring plan to be
  submitted within one year of licence approval by the
  Minister.
       On to Technical Comment 3.  We recommended that
  the Proponent provide a discussion on the stability and
  potential for seepage for perimeter dams at the TCA,
  given the likelihood of the frozen cores thawing due to
  climate change.  LMI provided the results of a one-time
  geophysical survey conducted in August 2019 for Dam 3D
  and Dam 4 in order to confirm the condition of frozen
  cores.
       The risk assessment report concluded that the dams
  have a continuous frozen core and were performing as
  expected, and under the high emission climate scenario,
  even though the cores would melt, the dams would remain
  geotechnically stable.  The potential for seepage was
  also considered to be low under the high emissions
  scenario according to the risk assessment report.
       ECCC notes that LMI has responded to the
  commitments they made during the technical meeting and
  has provided the requested information about the dams.
  We do recommend that the time frame for ongoing
  monitoring of the dams extend beyond the five-year
  period and continue for the full duration of monitoring
  for the site and that dam stability monitoring be
  included in the post-closure monitoring plan.
       Then Technical Comment 4, this is regarding the
  duration and timing of permanent monitoring.  We
  recommended that the Proponent provide clarification of
  the post-closure phase monitoring activities, the
  duration, and the thresholds for water quality and
  tailings cover performance that would trigger moving to
  reduced monitoring frequency or intensity.  We
  recommended that monitoring of the tailings containment
  area cover and of water be done over a period that is
  sufficient to demonstrate physical and chemical
  stability and acceptable quality for the long term.
       LMI proposes to develop a post-closure monitoring
  plan that incorporates regulatory review comments,
  ongoing field work, the Human Health and Environmental
  Risk Assessment results, and any other direction from
  the Nunavut Water Board within one year of licence
  approval.  ECCC concurs with the development of this
  plan as a licence condition and will be available to
  provide input on the draft.
       Our recommendation is that the proposed
  post-closure monitoring plan include thresholds for
  water quality and tailings cover performance that would
  trigger moving to reduced monitoring frequency or
  intensity.
       I do want to add that the corollary of that is
  that we would increase monitoring from what is
  currently planned, should results show that ten
  monitoring events over the remainder of the life of
  mine is not enough.
       And to finish the recommendation, that monitoring
  of the TCA cover and water quality be done over a
  period that is sufficient to demonstrate physical and
  chemical stability and acceptable quality for the long
  term, and in their response, LMI has agreed to those
  recommendations.
       I have a mistake on this slide.  Instead of saying
  "waste rock tailings and acid rock drainage", it should
  say "waste rock dome".  So if you were puzzled about
  this slide, that's why.
       So Technical Comment 6 regarding the waste rock
  dome and metal leaching recommended that LMI provide a
  rationale for the 1-metre cover depth selected and that
  they discuss options for installing a thicker cover
  layer to further isolate the waste rock from the active
  layer and to effectively prevent further metal leaching
  from the waste rock.  ECCC had also recommended that
  the Proponent identify monitoring to be done in the
  closure and post-closure phases that will identify the
  extent and pathways of any residual acid rock drainage
  or metal leaching from the waste rock.
       LMI predicted they expected seepage and runoff for
  conditions using predicted 2081 to 2100 intermediate
  climate conditions as well as under current climate
  conditions.  The updated Human Health and Ecological
  Risk Assessment concluded that ARD seepage may result
  in long-term impacts to surface water in three small
  lakes and recommended that water quality monitoring be
  conducted in Boot Lake, East Lake, and Lower Sewage
  Lake, firstly, to assess the current conditions and
  then to be able to track behaviour and comparative
  conditions and to identify any issues.
       ECCC recommends that the adjacent lakes, East,
  Boot, and Lower Sewage, be sampled prior to
  construction of the waste rock dome and that periodic
  monitoring be continued for a full suite of metals and
  for pH in order to confirm predicted seepage quality
  and behaviour and that the monitoring of water quality
  of visible seeps or flows exiting from the waste rock
  pile be done and that thresholds be identified for
  seepage quality in monitored flows or seeps that would
  indicate the need for remedial measures.  In their
  response, LMI has agreed to do this, and long-term
  monitoring will be discussed in the plan to be
  submitted.
       And then on TC 7, we had raised the issue of
  asbestos disposal.  The initial application didn't have
  the full list of guidelines in it.  Those have since
  been provided, and LMI will be following the
  appropriate guidelines for the disposal of
  asbestos-containing materials, and this issue was also
  resolved.
       We did a review of the draft water licence
  framework, which is helpful.  In the framework, the
  proposed effluent quality limits did not reflect
  changes to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent
  Regulations that will come into force June 2021.  Those
  may not apply if there are no discharges during 2021,
  and the response provided by LMI did note that that
  should be part of the licence in case there are
  discharges.  They also had updated the definition of
  "recognized closed mine" to reflect the current
  legislation, so this -- these comments are resolved.
       And with that, we would like to say thank you for
  allowing us to present our intervention and ask if
  there are any questions we can address.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Environment and
  Climate Change Canada.
       Open up for questions.  I'd like to start with the
  Applicant, if you have questions or comments to the
  presentation.
  Lupin Mines Incorporated Questions Environmental and
  Climate Change Canada
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines Incorporated.
       Mr. Chair, I'd just like a moment to confer with
  Lupin Mines.
  MS. WILKINS:             Good morning.  Sara Wilkins
  with Stantec.  Thank you.
       I just wanted to clarify a comment related to
  Number 2, where it was brought up in relation to
  Comment 2, if it was suggested that monthly monitoring
  continue for five years?  I'm just wondering if we
  heard that correctly.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Environment and Climate Change Canada.
  MS. WILSON:              Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       I think the frequency of the monitoring is going
  to be depending on, initially, the level of activity at
  the site, so for the first couple years, when there's a
  lot of construction activity, demolition activity, the
  expectation would be for a higher frequency of
  monitoring.
       I would anticipate that in the years following the
  bulk of the work being done, there's going to be a
  smaller presence on site, not a lot going on.  At that
  point, it would be reasonable to revert to, like,
  twice-a-year monitoring, so I think that's something
  that should be discussed in the development of the
  monitoring plan and to do what's useful and reasonable.
  MS. WILKINS:             Thank you very much.  That was
  also in line with our understanding.  We look forward
  to working with you in the development of the
  monitoring plan.  Thank you.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Now I'd like to
  call -- if there's no more questions from the
  Applicant.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines Incorporated.
       No, Mr. Chair.  Those are all of our questions.
  Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       I'd like to call CIRNAC to come forward if you
  have comments or questions related to the presentation
  by ECCC.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  This is
  Godwin, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada.  We have no questions.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Now I'd like to call public members, if you have
  comments or questions, yeah, you can come forward to
  the microphone.
  Questions for Environmental and Climate Change Canada
  by Community Representatives
  MR. KAIYOGANA:           I have questions for
  Environment Canada.
       If the mine site's completed, is there going to be
  any monitoring after it's done for a couple years, or
  it's been closed, and that's it, or I'm just wondering
  if it's going to be monitoring after it's completed,
  the mine site?
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Do you want to respond, Anne?  Go ahead.
  MS. WILSON:              Thank you.  Anne Wilson, ECCC.
       The long-term monitoring of the mine site is
  something that we had raised to be sure it's done, so
  the expectation is that there will be monitoring for
  the first five years at a higher intensity; then the
  next monitoring will depend on what is seen in the
  first five years, how stable the water quality is, how
  stable the remediated areas are, how well the tailings
  area cover is performing, and then the monitoring would
  be tiered down.
       The ultimate duration has not been discussed.
  Many northern mines under closure have a 25-year
  horizon, but in Lupin's case, they've already,
  effectively, been out of operation for some years, so I
  think it will just depend.  The duration will have to
  depend on what we see from the data.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Is there any more questions/comments from public
  members?
       Okay.  I take that there's no more.
       I'd like to ask the Board Staff?  No questions.
       Now I'd like to call panel members.  Do you have
  questions?  No.  Okay.  Thank you.
       Okay.  Thank you very much for your presentation,
  ECCC.  All right.
       Okay.  Moving on to -- in the agenda.  Should we
  take a short break?  I want to go through the agenda
  with the legal counsel before we go any further.  Take
  a short break, at least a ten-minute break for now.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               So to let you know that the
  break -- we are flexible to extend the break after
  10:00 for your -- for your convenience.
       Thank you.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you.  Christine Kowbel,
  Lupin Mines.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Reconvene from the
  break.
       Applicant, you get the floor for now.
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel to Lupin Mines.  My apologies, Mr. Chair.
       Mr. Chair, we have prepared -- as I'd mentioned
  yesterday, Lupin Mines has prepared just a short reply
  to some of the statements made yesterday.  It sounded
  like there was some confusion about whether -- and to
  the extent which contingencies and unknowns were
  accounted for in the estimate, and there was also some
  reference to the KP estimate, and so we wanted to -- we
  prepared just a short submission to the Board on
  those -- on those points, which Ms. Lewis is going to
  speak to.
       We've also done a minor update, I would say, to
  the closure estimate prepared by Ken Bocking.  Again,
  Karyn Lewis will just walk the Board, at a very high
  level, through a few of those changes.  The changes are
  to include some items that had been discussed with
  CIRNAC and also to -- to make sure that the estimate
  matches up with the milestones document.  I've also
  filed a reformatted version of the milestones document
  this morning with Ms. Meadows.  That's just to show --
  that's just the same information in a slightly more
  readable format, so I'll just give Ms. Lewis a moment
  to pull up her submission, and then if it pleases the
  Board, then she can proceed and make those -- make
  those submissions.
       Thank you.
  MS. LEWIS:               Hi.  Thank you.  Karyn Lewis,
  LMI.  Just two seconds.
       Okay.  Just some reply to some of the comments
  that happened over the last couple days that we wanted
  to address.
       As noted by CIRNAC, security currently held by
  CIRNAC in the amount of 26.1 million is based on the
  Knight Piésold cost analysis between CIRNAC's 2016 cost
  security estimate and LMI's 2014 security estimate.  As
  the Board may recall, the KP estimate was not a full
  estimate.  It was focused primarily on items of
  disagreement between LMI and CIRNAC estimates.  For the
  reasons I'm about to explain, those items are now out
  of --
  THE CHAIR:               Excuse me.  Can you slow down
  a bit.
  MS. LEWIS:               Oh, sure.  Yeah, sorry.
  THE CHAIR:               The interpretation have to
  be --
  MS. LEWIS:               Yeah.
  THE CHAIR:               -- and the reporter and all
  that, so slow down a bit.
  MS. LEWIS:               For the reasons I'm about to
  explain, those items are now out of date and not
  applicable to the estimate.  We believe the overall
  security set for the Lupin mine should be as reflected
  in the updated estimate that I filed today, which
  matches up with the agreed milestones document with
  CIRNAC, and that total is 23.4 million and includes
  additional amounts as requested by CIRNAC.
       The KP estimate was based on the then-approved
  ICRP in 2016.  Since that time, LMI has received
  approval from the Board for a revised ICRP in 2018.
       Before you today is the FCRP, which includes
  different approaches to certain tasks that were not
  contemplated in the previous ICRPs.  For example, in
  the FCRP, we will now be placing soils underground via
  the crown pillar , instead of being land farmed.  Under
  the final closure plan, waste rock will now be
  consolidated in the dome and covered; whereas, the
  previous approach in the ICRP was to place some waste
  rock underground via the adit and some in Cell 5.  The
  difference between these and other approaches have a
  cost difference of approximately 5 million less than
  the KP estimate.
       Unit rates are also different.  As the majority of
  LMI's cost estimate is based on actual third-party
  contractor rates' estimates, and less, where
  applicable, and identified in the cost estimate for
  tasks to place during post-closure.  For example, in
  the KP estimate, all buildings were priced using a unit
  rate of 128 metres squared, and in LMI's cost estimate
  are now based on each building individually, i.e., the
  mill will cost approximately 200 metres squared, and
  the fire house is approximately 30 metres squared --
  $30 metres squared.
       Overall, we have received approximately $8 million
  in security reductions since the KP estimate, and while
  we have received some reductions in security for work
  carried out at site, we have not received all
  reductions for progressive reclamation, with
  approximately $3 million in progressive reclamation
  that has been carried out since July 2018, which
  includes such items as decontaminating buildings,
  hazardous waste removal and disposal fees, cleaning of
  all tanks not in use outside of the main tank farm,
  tailings pipe removal, treating and discharge of Pond
  2, continuing to cover Cell 5, instrumentation
  installation, studies, engineering, and adjusted
  indirect cost based on such reductions.  This is all
  work that has reduced the overall reclamation
  liabilities at the site.
       LMI's new cost estimate is a complete estimate
  prepared by an external third-party expert, Ken
  Bocking, with Golder Associates, and based on
  third-party contractor prices to carry out the closure
  work as per the final closure and reclamation plan.
  There are also tasks in the cost estimate that will be
  carried out by LMI during post-closure, and for those
  items, the estimate used unit rates that consistent
  with rate claim.
       LMI would also like to note that its proposed
  security estimate has increased by approximately
  3 million since our initial cost estimate filed with
  our application in July 2018, and the revised security
  estimate between -- sorry -- the estimate in July 2018
  and the revised security estimate filed in November
  2019, the one today, to reflect the actual contractor
  costs.
       If you are interested, you will see that LMI's
  cost estimate has the new amounts highlighted in
  yellow, and the broken-out and additional items
  requested by CIRNAC are in red.
       Maybe before I go on, we'll just -- there's
  nothing on this page.  Maybe go to buildings, which
  is -- I don't know which page that is.  No, the actual
  page, I think it might be, or you could go to --
  MR. RUPTASH:             Do you want me to do it?
  MS. LEWIS:               Yeah.
  MR. RUPTASH:             Sure, yeah.
  MS. LEWIS:               Yes, please.  Here's one,
  actually, so right here.
       Soil cover at the mine site is a new item under
  the FCRP, and it's also shown in red, as we've broken
  out the tasks, which now matches the milestone,
  security milestones that are filed to go with the
  security framework so that they both match up exactly;
  so when you go through the security estimate, you'll
  note that there's items in yellow that are new from our
  previous estimates, and red are the new broken-out
  items or items put in the surface mobile shop, the
  treatment plant, or were requested to be put in, and
  we've made those additions.
       I think that's good, Kenny.  We don't need to --
  we're just showing.
       Okay.  So just moving on, there was a comment made
  by CIRNAC's consultant that LMI estimate does not have
  contingency for unknowns.  This is a misunderstanding.
  In fact, there is approximately $575,000 in contingency
  specifically for unknowns.
       In the CIRNAC presentation, it was stated that
  there will be exposed tailings once the water level is
  lowered in the TCA, tailings containment area, and LMI
  considers that it is currently unknown if tailings will
  be exposed when the water level is lowered.
       LMI has a closure line item set aside to cover the
  known tailings outside of containment in the northwest
  corner of Cell 4.  An overall project contingency
  allowance is set aside to address potential mitigation
  costs such as covering unknown tailings.  In addition,
  there's approximately one million in post-closure
  monitoring, and we have included costs throughout the
  estimate for items that we may or may not be required.
  This is part of our conservative approach.
       As an example, we have approximately 130,000
  allocated to an EEM study that, currently, our experts
  believe will not be required, but we have left in our
  estimate just in case it is required.  LMI has been
  very conservative with their costs to ensure that there
  are adequate funds for the post-closure work.
       That concludes my part.  Thank you.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I think
  we would be -- I think the next stage would be open to
  questions on our reply.  Is that the next -- the stage
  of the process?
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah, thank you.
       Yeah, open up for questions.
       Before doing that, Teresa, go ahead.
  MS. MEADOWS:             So, Mr. Chair, just one more
  thing with respect to the documents that -- the
  document that Ms. Lewis was speaking to.
       They have offered it to the Board for filing as
  the next electronic exhibits in this public hearing,
  and they also referenced an updated security reduction
  schedule for filing, as well, so I propose to file
  those next two documents as an exhibit, but for the
  benefit of the parties that are here, I will be
  providing those also to Richard right away, and
  hopefully they can post them and circulate them to the
  parties that are here so that they can take a look at
  them themselves.  If you are having any trouble
  accessing it on your devices, and you want to look at a
  full version of it, please let us know, and you can
  take a look at it at the break.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       EXHIBIT 25 - Electronic Copy, Updated
       Reclamation Security Estimate (NOTE:
       Mathematical error in Exhibit 15 corrected)
       (English)
       EXHIBIT 26 - Electronic Copy, Updated
       Security Reduction Schedule Dated January 16,
       2020 (English)
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, Teresa.
       So open up for questions/comments.  I'd like to
  start with CIRNAC.  If you have questions, come to the
  microphone.
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  Questions Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MR. OKONKWO:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  So
  Godwin, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
  Canada.  So I'll respond briefly, and then Gerd, the
  consultant from Arcadis, will respond as well.
       Before I start my response, I just want to restate
  what CIRNAC's position is on what we hold currently.
  Our position is that we want to retain the entire
  $26.1 million in security and only reduce the security
  based on the context of the framework elements, and I
  stated that yesterday, and so that is you do the work,
  you validate the work, as a demonstration of, our --
  our inspectors would acknowledge -- be on site,
  acknowledge that, and there's an evidence there's a
  reduction in environmental liability, and then, you
  know, we can talk about a release.
       So very quickly, before I let Gerd respond to some
  of these questions, I just wanted to say that LMI
  mentioned contingency for monitoring.  That money is
  meant for monitoring.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Sorry.  Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you.  Christine Kowbel,
  legal counsel for LMI.
       Just for a clarification about process, I believe
  mis -- CIRNAC's time for making statements is complete,
  and this is their time to ask questions about our
  reply, but not necessarily to make their own submission
  or their own reply statements.  If I could get that
  clarity on process, thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       So CIRNAC response.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       Okay.  From a question point of view, then, as we
  reviewed the milestone documents, CIRNAC had explicitly
  expressed concern about releasing the currently
  identified contingency, and was it not stated by LMI
  that that contingency was specifically related to the
  engineered items that were being discussed?  That was
  not related to unknowns, and, therefore, was requesting
  that the contingency be paid back or dropped in
  accordance with the milestones, so I just want to be
  clear as to what you're saying here, LMI, in that
  regard.
  THE CHAIR:               Check your mic, please.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Sorry.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. LEWIS:               I'm just going to take a
  minute; is that okay?  Thank you.
       First of all, I just wanted to -- oh, Karyn Lewis,
  LMI.  I just wanted to clarify that we're talking about
  the contingency, not what Godwin said, with
  post-closure monitoring contingency, just the five --
  MR. OKONKWO:             Yes.  That's what I was
  referring to.
  MS. LEWIS:               Okay.  I'm going to let Kenny
  answer.
  MR. RUPTASH:             Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       The contingency is derived from a percentage of
  all known work, so recognizing that we have accounted
  for a contingency in buildings.  We don't expect a
  building to pop up and that we're -- we weren't
  accounting for, so we are talking a global approach to
  contingency, while recognizing that that funding
  allocation can be apportionated [sic] to any unknown
  work that is similar to work that we've been
  conducting.
  MR. WIATZKA:             It's Gerd Wiatzka here from
  Arcadis.
       The question -- the statement you guys had made
  earlier was that you could use that contingency for
  unknown works, and I don't know if I'm allowed to
  procedurally make a statement about that, but when we
  specifically ask you to hold it, not draw on it as
  part -- as the work progressed, you explicitly said it
  was related to the identified works, so you can't come
  back now and say it's holding for other works.
  MR. RUPTASH:             So specifically related --
  sorry, Kenny Ruptash here, Nahanni.
       Specifically related to your query on exposed
  tailings, we have a line item for exposed tailings with
  which we have held a contingency for -- or accounted
  for a contingency.
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.  That
  line item is for known exposed tailings.  What we
  talked about was the question for unknown, and the
  overall contingency question was for unknown events
  that may exist, such as when you dewater.  It's not for
  the Cell 4 exposed tailings.  Everything that has been
  identified, to date, we've gone through it, to the best
  of our knowledge, collectively, and have come up with a
  framework for working those -- those items.  What
  CIRNAC is concerned about is the contingent amount for
  unknown events and conditions.
  MR. RUPTASH:             Yeah.  Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       The -- regardless of that specific scope of work,
  known or unknown, it is similar-like work.  The Cell 4
  is specifically what we're talking about.  A tailings
  outside of the cells that we are proposing to cover, if
  when the water is drawn down, we find tailings that are
  outside of cells, we have already accounted for that
  specific scope of work, whether known or unknown, it is
  like work, and carried a contingency for that type of
  work.  We don't believe there's anything there, but we
  have accounted for a contingency nonetheless.
  MR. OKONKWO:             So this is Godwin,
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
       I'll let Gerd continue, but I had a question for
  LMI:  So when you change your methods from the ICRP,
  you change your methods in the final closure plan, did
  you compare -- like, the new methods you're going to be
  using, did you compare them in terms of quality of work
  and integrity to what you originally wanted to do?
  MS. LEWIS:               Yes.  Oh, sorry.  I'll just
  take my --
  MS. WILKINS:             Hello.  Sara Wilkins with
  Stantec.
       The methods, techniques, and procedures to execute
  the final closure plan were developed by professionals
  who are experts in their field who felt this was the
  best approach; therefore, the cost is in alignment with
  the FCRP.
  MR. WIATZKA:             I want to go back -- it's Gerd
  Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       I want to go back to Kenny's statement.  The Cell
  4 exposed tailings are known tailings in a small area
  that represent approximately $60,000 in liability to
  cover them in their current condition.  LMI's plan
  calls for dewatering the existing ponds to new water
  levels that while we don't have the exact information,
  just looking at the site plans, based on their
  bathymetry, may go from 10 metres to 100 metres out
  from the toe of the dam.
       The fact that we know that we have an existing
  area of exposed tailings outside the cells does not
  suggest, as LMI has pointed out, to what degree there
  may be future exposed tailings as the water's drawn
  down.  Given the history of the mine, we know that some
  of -- and, certainly, LMI has staff on site who were
  there, on their team who were on site when the dams
  were built.  We know that there were tailings outside
  of the dams.  We don't know the extent.  We have not
  costed -- we have seen not any costs, and we have not
  asked for any costs explicitly in that regard, but we
  do know there is a potential for tailings to be
  exposed.
       When these tailings are exposed, they will be
  saturated tailings because the water will have just
  been dewatered.  They may require completely different
  work elements, as LMI has pointed out in their decision
  matrix when working on saturated tails that aren't
  frozen, so the analogy of using the Cell 4 cost of
  in-place cover placement is not necessarily
  representative of the level of effort that may be
  required of for an exposed tailing element in a
  site-specific location or the extent of that.  So
  that's what we treat as an unknown.  If LMI wants to
  consider the existing contingency as representative of
  all the unknowns, that's totally different than what we
  talked about when we're doing the released framework.
  MS. LEWIS:               Can I just have one minute?
  MR. RUPTASH:             Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       We understand CIRNAC's concern, but in our
  analysis have not found any evidence illustrating
  the -- or any evidence indicating that there may be any
  tailings below water elevations.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.
       Now I'd like to call ECCC, if you have questions
  or comments related to Applicant's replies.
  MS. WALKER:              Eva Walker with Environment
  and Climate Change Canada.  We have no comments.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       I'd like to call Water Board, the Water Board
  Staff, if you have a comment or questions.
       Karén, go ahead.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines
  Incorporated
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Just starting with one comment:  Yesterday, the
  milestone total amount included within yesterday's
  milestone was 23,600,000.  Now we see 23,400,000 with a
  statement that there was addition, from my
  understanding, there -- if it's the correct number,
  there was addition, and there was reduction, too, for
  some items.
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.
       I'll have to go back and look, but the milestones
  and the security estimate match up.
       Sorry, what was it you were saying the milestone
  was yesterday?
  MR. KHARATYAN:           I can tell you the exact
  number within yesterday's milestone:  23,624,000.
  MS. LEWIS:               No, I don't believe that would
  have been correct.  I'll go back and double-look here,
  but I -- and I can go over it with CIRNAC really
  quickly --
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Okay.
  MS. LEWIS:               -- the amounts.  Oh, actually,
  there was a line item.  I'll point out, sorry, the shop
  area, I think the amount might have been calculated,
  but I'll double-check.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               State your name for the
  record, please.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       Because there was a discussion about contingency,
  just to clarify, the contingency item included within
  this framework, milestone, I don't know how to call it
  now, is for contingency for all unknowns?  Is this
  right?
  MR. RUPTASH:             Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       It is contingency held for scope growth in known
  work phases.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       The contingency included within the 2018 version
  of estimate, cost estimate, was 10 percent.  Now it's 5
  percent.  I am just wondering whether this is related
  to new methodology and the contractor doing the work,
  or company thinks that there are less unknowns now?
  MR. RUPTASH:             Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       We feel that through some rigorous analysis of the
  site, combined with contractor expertise, that we have
  narrowed the scope and defined the scope a lot, you
  know, a lot more detailed than we had previously.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       One more question, small question, for -- we were
  thinking about the potential of additional water
  treatment within Pond 2 after discharging the --
  yesterday, we were speaking if the water quality
  doesn't meet the guidelines, there will be additional
  treatment.  So, for example, these additional
  treatment, potential treatment, is it included within
  this contingency or within a different item?
  MR. RUPTASH:             Mr. Chair, Kenny Ruptash,
  Nahanni Construction.
       With respect to the water treatment, we have
  carried the standard contingency as allocated
  throughout the rest of the framework, but in addition,
  we have carried a 20 percent contingency on chemicals
  to be used in water treatment that will be brought to
  the site in the event that additional water needs to be
  treated.  We don't anticipate that it will be used in
  this program, but it will brought.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you.
       That means that within the summary, you have
  additional items that includes this 20 percent
  contingency, yes?
  MR. RUPTASH:             Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       Within the specific line item for treatment, you
  will see chemicals.  I believe it says "soda ash" in
  there.  We are bringing additional chemicals that are
  included in that line item that are not required
  currently for the volume that we have on site, but will
  be brought as contingency, should volumes increase.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       Just wondering whether this 20 percent will be
  enough for one additional year of treatment, for
  example?
  MR. RUPTASH:             Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       The intention of treatment in the 2020 season is
  not to treat for discharge and leave the remaining
  contaminated water.  The intention in the 2020
  treatment season is to treat all water on site, so if
  there is remaining water after, it's our -- it's our
  position that the 20 percent contingency in chemicals
  would be sufficient.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you.  One question to Crown-Indigenous Relations
  and Northern Affairs.
       After this additional explanation and
  clarification, whether your position is still that --
  remaining the same, that security amount included
  within the current licence be stated the same.
       Please respond, yes.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah, go to the microphone.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Godwin, Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
       It's still our position that it remains at what it
  remains, 26.1.
       Thank you.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  No more questions at this time.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Applicant, go ahead.
  Submissions by Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MS. LEWIS:               Karyn Lewis, LMI.
       I just wanted to point out, and I just spoke to
  Gerd about this, the discrepancy in the milestone with
  the one we filed yesterday was we broke out a line item
  for mine, site, soil, shop area, which was just over
  1,000 metres cubed, and, unfortunately, the calculation
  stayed with the line item above at 230,000, instead of
  the 4,000 that it was supposed to be, so that equates
  for approximately the $200,000 difference.
  THE CHAIR:               Is there any more questions
  from the Water Board Staff?
  Discussion
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Karyn, can we get you to file a corrected copy of
  the updated reclamation that accurately reflects the
  number so that we --
  MS. LEWIS:               We do.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Oh, okay.  You sent it to me?
  MS. LEWIS:               It's on the stick.  Karén was
  speaking to the milestone one that was submitted
  yesterday.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Oh, okay.
  MS. LEWIS:               The revised one today match
  perfectly, and all the lines now are aligned.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Okay.  So the most recent one
  is the corrected one --
  MS. LEWIS:               Yes.
  MS. MEADOWS:             -- for the record?
  MS. LEWIS:               There was a mathematical error
  in the previously submitted now, yes.
  MS. MEADOWS:             All right.  I will --
  MS. LEWIS:               Thank you.
  MS. MEADOWS:             I will put that notation in
  the exhibit list so that it's clear to everyone who's
  trying to follow along at home as one does through the
  transcript.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.  I believe
  that the Applicant still has some more replies to do.
  MS. LEWIS:               No, we have no more reply.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Oh, Karyn Lewis, LMI.
  THE CHAIR:               Go ahead, Teresa.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       No, it's my understanding that the framework, that
  you would speak to the framework document at this point
  in the proceedings; is that correct?
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines.
       I believe that CIRNAC was going to ask for
  permission for a short break just to confirm the final
  terms of that framework, but I'll leave it to CIRNAC to
  request that, if they're planning to do that.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, CIRNAC.
  MR. OKONKWO:             Yeah.  So Godwin,
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
       So we will -- CIRNAC will be requesting a quick
  15-minute break for that.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Yeah, thank you.
       Yeah, we'll be back.  We will be back at 11.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               So the break will be
  continuing ten more minutes.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  I think we are ready to
  be back to the table, reconvene from the break.
       So I believe the Water Board Staff, Karén, take
  the floor.
  Nunavut Water Board Staff Questions Lupin Mines
  Incorporated and Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs Canada
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       I will start, and I think Derek may have
  additional question.  He will continue, and I will ask,
  also, please to provide their feedback.
       Starting with -- and thank you for providing these
  draft conditions.  Thanks to LMI and CIRNAC.
       So one question regarding the Item 7, so just to
  clarify whether LMI and CIRNAC think that, in addition
  to this process, phased release of security, there may
  be need of amendment, so whether this condition is with
  the understanding of amendment to licence with respect
  to security?
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Go ahead, Applicant.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Christine Kowbel, legal counsel for Lupin.  I'm just
  going to confer with my client.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines Incorporated.  So in discussing
  the security framework with CIRNAC, as I said, we have
  reached -- at this time, we've reached an agreement
  about how the parties envision security being agress --
  released progressively over time, and in having those
  discussions, we always assumed that the, sort of, usual
  Board Rules would apply, that we don't expect anything
  unexpected to happen, but if any party, including a
  member of the public, thought the security amount was
  not the right amount, in the future, it'd be open to
  them to apply to the Board in the future to change it,
  and they'd give evidence for that request.  That's
  something that the Board always requires.
       We think, as we've always thought, that as the
  Board sets the amount of security, they set the quantum
  of security, that that's something the Board should be
  able to approve as an update to a schedule, to
  Schedule C.  The company thinks, procedurally, that
  shouldn't be subject to an amendment process, but we do
  recognize that that's the Board's decision, the Board's
  call about their own process, and so we leave it for
  the Board to decide whether an amendment should be
  required to change the overall security amount.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, LMI.
       One more question regarding the Schedule C or
  statement not with Schedule C, to be populated per
  attached table, which has been agreed between CIRNAC
  and LMI.  This is the milestone framework, I think,
  yes, you are referring to?
       And, again, I need to -- we need to clarify, for
  record, because there is a number included, and from my
  understanding, this general number is not agreed with
  by CIRNAC.
       I will ask CIRNAC whether they confirm that their
  position is they agree with the approach.  Even I have
  a question, next question will be about the approach,
  but they agree with this milestone about the approach
  of releasing -- progressively releasing security, but
  the basis for a starting point or -- will be the number
  included within the current licence, not the number
  included there, just for confirmation, please.
  MR. OKONKWO:             So Godwin, Crown-Indigenous
  Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
       So, indeed, in your question, what you have said
  is -- I don't have to repeat it, is what -- the
  starting point should be what is held currently under
  the licence.
       Thank you.
       Sorry, I forgot also to say that, yeah, we agree
  with the release, like, the process of release, like,
  the framework that we've come up in terms of how we
  release security.
  THE CHAIR:               So the Applicant will want to
  add an addition, I guess.
  MS. KOWBEL:              Christine Kowbel, legal
  counsel for Lupin Mines.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       I just wanted to clarify that I believe that this
  is what CIRNAC just confirmed, but to answer your
  question, yes, the milestones document is the document
  that we proposed to add a Schedule C, and the line
  items in that milestone documents, all those line
  items, as a process, have been agreed to between CIRNAC
  and LMI.
       The only outstanding issue is that total number at
  the end.  CIRNAC wants that total number to be
  something different than Lupin Mine does at this point,
  and, of course, Lupin Mine believes it's given ample
  evidence for the number that it's recommending as to
  the total to the Board, so we would recognize that one
  total at the bottom of that is something that's still
  outstanding between CIRNAC and Lupin, but everything
  above it is agreed.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Thank you.  Karén Kharatyan,
  Water Board.  Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, LMI, and
  thank you, CIRNAC.
       Now one question about the approach.  For example,
  I am just picking the contingency.  So from my
  understanding or based on this milestone, at any time
  any work is completed from the entire work, my
  understanding is that a new -- new cost estimate will
  be provided, and this item, contingency, will be
  reduced as shown in the new cost estimate, percentages
  will be reduced, so just to confirm with -- again, with
  LMI and CIRNAC, that they have a common or same
  understanding that any time any work is completed,
  contingency will be reduced?
  MR. RUPTASH:             Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       I hope I'm addressing your question in my response
  here.  The percentage contingency remaining, the
  percentage remains, but it is a percentage of the
  remaining work, so as we advance work and reduce the
  security estimate, the percentage of that work will be
  carried forward to the next, the next security
  estimate.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       So the total cost estimate will be reduced
  proportionally, or contingency will be reduced
  proportionally, yes, so whether -- whether this is
  INAC's understanding as well?
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka, Arcadis.
       That was our understanding as well.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  No more questions at this stage.
  Derek has a quick question as well.
  MR. DONALD:              Derek Donald, Nunavut Water
  Board.  Thank you, Karén.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       Just one quick question for clarification with
  respect to the milestones in the framework you
  provided.  So each milestone would be, for example,
  like the underground mine and the tailings facility,
  because I know those -- those, sort of -- have, sort
  of, been broken out into line items, but you wouldn't
  be expecting the underground mine milestone to be
  broken then down into three sections, so I think it
  works out to about eight milestones for the capital
  costs and seven for the indirect costs.  Is that the
  correct understanding?
  MR. RUPTASH:             Kenny Ruptash, Nahanni.
       The way that the costs have been broken down are
  such that we will not -- the release will not be made
  until the line item has been fully completed.
  MR. DONALD:              Thank you.
  MR. RUPTASH:             Yeah, apologies, Kenny with
  Nahanni.
       That is for direct work.  The indirect work is
  laid out -- the framework for the indirect work is laid
  out separately.
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.
       So are you -- you're waiting for answering
  questions and so on?
  MR. WIATZKA:             Gerd Wiatzka.
       Yes, we were just waiting to see if there was any
  other questions on that for CIRNAC.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           Karén Kharatyan, Water Board.
       Just, again, with LMI, just a small clarification.
  When saying "a line item", you mean the line item
  within the big cost summary, not line item with
  breakdowns?  So that means we have how many line items?
  There are around eight or nine, yes.
  MR. RUPTASH:             Yeah, Kenny with Nahanni here.
       The summary at the top is for summation purposes
  only.  The advancement will be on the line items below.
  MR. KHARATYAN:           You mean the breakdown line
  items?  That means would be a lot of notification and
  back and forth between LMI and CIRNAC for release;
  okay.
       It's a little bit -- our -- the NWB position was
  maybe if it was possible to regroup or provide these
  with different phases, but it's, again, between LMI and
  CIRNAC, if, administratively, they will be able to
  handle this back and forth.
       Nothing to say, documents there.  Thank you,
  Mr. Chair.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
       Teresa.
  MS. MEADOWS:             Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Teresa
  Meadows, legal counsel for the Nunavut Water Board.
       So, Mr. Chair, I have confirmation from
  Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  that this is a joint submission, that the joint
  submission that was provided by email in electronic
  form by Ms. Kowbel, is the accepted framework, and so I
  propose to file that electronically as the next exhibit
  in this public hearing, and I will circulate it to
  Richard, who will circulate it to the broader group.
  If there are any parties who would like to see a copy
  of the framework, please come and see us, and we can --
  we can make sure that that happens for you or manage to
  get a hard copy for you as well.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       EXHIBIT 27 - Electronic Copy, Joint
       Submission by Lupin Mines Incorporated and
       Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
       Affairs Canada Regarding Security Reduction
       Schedule (English)
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  I think we are
  getting to -- about to do some closing remarks and so
  on.
       I'd like to call upon Crown-Indigenous Relations
  and Northern Affairs for closing remarks.
  Closing Remarks by Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs Canada
  MR. OKONKWO:             Thank you, Koana, Mr. Chair.
  Godwin Okonkwo, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
  Affairs Canada.
       Teresa says I have ten seconds, so ...
       I just want to say thank you to the Nunavut Water
  Board for the opportunity for CIRNAC to participate in
  this public hearing and the opportunity to present our
  position.  I also want to thank LMI and ECCC and the
  community members for participating in this public
  hearing.  I'd like to especially thank the community
  members for the hospitality they've provided for us in
  Kugluktuk.  Koana.
       So my closing remarks very quickly, I just wanted
  to state that CIRNAC will be recommending that the
  Crown retains the existing security amount we hold,
  26.1 million, to ensure that the site, the Lupin site,
  is responsibly reclaimed, both for the known and the
  unknown and emerging impacts or challenges on the site.
  The Crown does not intend to bear any environmental or
  financial liability for reclamation of the site.
  CIRNAC is also looking forward to LMI living up to the
  commitments they have made in this public hearing.
  And, finally, we are recommending -- CIRNAC is
  recommending that some of the additional details and
  information that were provided through memos or
  discussions be used to update the final closure plan,
  as this is -- this is going into full closure.
       Thank you.  Koana.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, CIRNAC.
       Now I'd like to call Environment and Climate
  Change Canada for closing remarks.
  Closing Remarks by Environment and Climate Change
  Canada
  MS. WALKER:              Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Eva
  Walker with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
       So I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the
  Board, the community for welcoming us here.  It's been
  really wonderful.  So I have -- I'd like to thank the
  Board for the opportunity to provide our comments and
  recommendation, also thank LMI for fruitful discussions
  and, again, for participating in this process, and
  CIRNAC as well, so no further comments.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you, ECCC.
       Now I'd like to call Applicant for your -- for
  your closing remarks.
  Closing Remarks by Lupin Mines Incorporated
  MS. LABATTE:             Mr. Chair, thank you.  Belinda
  Labatte, Lupin Mines.
       The primary purpose -- the primary purpose of this
  hearing has been to consider the Lupin Mines
  Incorporated application for renewal of the Lupin water
  licence.  At the outset, we want to thank the community
  of Kugluktuk for hosting us, and we wish to pass on our
  condolences to the friends and family of your beloved
  Elder June Okalik Klengenberg.  We appreciate that
  hosting a hearing may have been difficult in these
  circumstances for many of you this week.
       It was really great to see many of you out last
  night and over the course of today and yesterday and to
  get to share information about our project with you
  here in the room.  We hope that we were able to answer
  your questions, and please let us know if you have any
  more questions as our work at Lupin continues.
       LMI wishes to thank the Nunavut Water Board, all
  Intervenors, and members of the community for carefully
  considering this application and for making
  constructive suggestions and contributions to the
  information base.
       LMI has listened carefully to the recommendations
  made by all parties respecting the licence renewal,
  changes in terms and conditions of the licence, and LMI
  has tried to reply and respond in a constructive way.
  We encourage the Board to review our draft water
  licence framework submitted in November 2019 as that
  reflects our views on the necessary amendments, but for
  Part C, which we propose should be reviewed as per the
  joint security framework exhibit submitted to the Board
  today.
       In these closing submissions, LMI will touch on a
  few points that were discussed during the hearings.  We
  are pleased that we have been able to reach a high
  degree of consensus on these and wish to thank CIRNAC
  and Environment and Climate Change Canada as well as
  Board Staff for their commitment to achieving such a
  positive outcome.  We are grateful for all of the hours
  that have been spent on this file, and we do look
  forward to continuing to work collaboratively together
  as we complete the closure of the Lupin mine.  We are
  planning for the closure of the Lupin mine to be a
  positive example of the natural end of the lifecycle of
  a mine in the north.
       We wish to acknowledge Environment Canada and
  Climate -- Environment Canada's confirmation that their
  outstanding issues can be addressed through the
  company's commitment to update the monitoring plan, and
  we will continue to work together to ensure that our
  activities proceed in accordance with the MDMER and all
  applicable federal legislation.
       We are pleased to have been able to reach a path
  forward agreeable to CIRNAC for the progressive and the
  timely release of security back to LMI as key
  reclamation tasks are completed.  We have also been
  able to find consensus with CIRNAC with respect to the
  evidence that will be required in order to confirm
  those milestones have been completed.
       LMI is committed to continuing further reclamation
  at Lupin mine until all tasks outlined in the final
  closure and reclamation plan are complete.  The
  progressive release of security at Lupin mine back to
  LMI will ensure that the reclamation of the Lupin mine
  proceeds and completes as scheduled.  For the future
  clarity of all parties, we request the Board reflect
  these arrangements in Part C of the water licence and
  as part of our joint submission to the Board.
       We are also pleased that we have found a path
  forward to fulfill all of CIRNAC's information
  requests, which will still permit the amended licence
  to be issued by the Board.  There were some challenges
  understanding the precise nature of what was being
  requested, given CIRNAC's busy schedule in recent
  months.  The Nunavut Water Board's facilitation in
  January helped LMI get the necessary clarity on what
  those outstanding issues were.  Once we had that
  clarity, we immediately addressed the issues that
  CIRNAC wished for us to address.
       All of LMI's commitments to CIRNAC have been
  provided to the Board in the form of an exhibit, and we
  are asking for the Board to approve the final closure
  and reclamation plan with the issuance of the amended
  licence so that there's no delay in the work; however,
  we commit to produce the additional information
  requested by CIRNAC and committed to by LMI in the form
  of an addendum to that approved final closure and
  reclamation plan, and we commit to produce that
  addendum within 60 days of Board approval.
       The only outstanding issue is CIRNAC and LMI's
  difference of opinion on the final overall quantum of
  security.  CIRNAC has said that they are more
  comfortable with the current overall quantum of 26.1
  million.  They have not provided any evidence for this
  number, despite having the opportunity to prepare their
  own estimate as they have on several occasions
  previously.  They have encouraged the Board to look to
  the 2016 KP estimate as support for this number, but as
  discussed here, in LMI's reply and in our written
  submissions on this application, the KP estimate is
  long out of date and does not reflect current site
  conditions.
       In contrast, LMI has provided a robust estimate
  with the further detail added by the agreed milestones
  document with CIRNAC that has been prepared by a
  third-party expert, Mr. Ken Bocking of Golder, with us
  here today.  This evidence supports our request for the
  overall security under the licence to be set at 23.4
  million, based on current site conditions and
  reflecting current outstanding liability.
       Should CIRNAC decide to prepare an estimate in the
  future, and should that estimate differ from
  Mr. Bocking's estimate, they could apply to the Board
  for an amendment to the overall security.  The process
  provides for this option; however, it would not be
  procedurally fair to maintain security at 26.1 million
  when there is little to no evidentiary basis for this
  amount presented by CIRNAC during these hearings.
       In the meantime, in LMI's view, their submissions
  during this application have met the very high
  evidentiary standard set by Section 76 of the Act and
  Section 10 of the Nunavut Waters Regulations.
       With regard to Section 10 factors, LMI submits to
  the Board that its estimate of 23.4 million should be
  accepted by the Board as it takes into account the
  costs of abandonment of the Lupin mine.  I should note
  that as LMI has confirmed during these hearing, LMI has
  no intention of abandonment.
       The estimate also takes into account the costs of
  restoration of the Lupin mine and the costs of an
  ongoing set of measures that may remain to be taken.
  We also note that the Lupin mine is not located on any
  Inuit-owned lands.
       We thank you very much to the Board for
  facilitating these meetings.  They have been very
  productive, and we look forward to your decision and
  recommendations on the final terms and conditions of
  our amended water licence.  Koana and safe travels to
  those who are travelling today.
       Thank you.
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.  Thank you,
  Applicant, for your closing remarks.
       Before getting to my closing remarks, we will have
  a short break, at least five minutes or so.
  (ADJOURNMENT)
  THE CHAIR:               We may continue on now.  We
  are almost ready, quite ready now.  Get back to the
  seats, please.
       Okay.  Thanks again.  Before I go into my closing
  remarks, I'll have our executive director, Stephanie
  Autut, take over the floor for a minute.
       Thank you.
  MS. AUTUT:               Thank you, Mr. Chair.
       So the Board just wanted to take a moment to
  recognize the passing of Elder June Klengenberg.  June
  was the eldest Elder in Nunavut, has been a resident of
  the Gjoa Haven Continuing Care Centre for a number of
  years, but is a resident of Kugluktuk, so on behalf of
  the Board and its Staff and the parties present, we
  would like to extend our condolences to the community
  on June's passing and want you to know that you're in
  our thoughts and prayers going forward.  We recognize
  the funeral is today.  The Board will be ending its
  meetings so that any member that's present will be able
  to attend and participate in the funeral services, but
  we wanted the community to understand the Board's
  thinking of you and knows that June is now resting
  peacefully.
       Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Closing Remarks
  THE CHAIR:               Okay.  Thank you.  Now I'll go
  into my closing remarks.
       As we bring this public hearing to a close, on
  behalf of the Board and my fellow panel members, I
  would like to thank all the parties who have
  contributed to making this public hearing and community
  session a success, especially Applicant, LMI -- all
  right.  I did all right -- and their technical
  representatives, thank you.
       Intervenors, Crown-Indigenous Relations and
  Northern Affairs and Environment and Climate Change
  Canada; NWB Staff and legal counsel, thank you;
  interpreters, Ben Kogvik and Joe Otokiak, thank you;
  court reporter, Julie Albert, thank you; sound
  technician, Norbert Poitras -- I think I pronounced it
  properly -- thank you.  All the community members and
  the Elders for their valued participation in this
  hearing.  Thank you all to the caterers and the hamlet
  of Kugluktuk for their outstanding hospitality and
  patience with the Board.
       In closing, I want to let parties know that what
  will happen next for the application, the Board will
  now close the public hearing record.  What this means
  is that all evidence with regards to this amendment and
  renewal application is now before the Board, and no
  further information will be considered by the panel
  before they make their decision about the application.
       Now that the record is closed, the Board will
  remit the file to the panel to decide whether or not to
  grant LMI's request to renew and amend Type "A" Water
  Licence Number 2AM-LUP1520.  Within 30 days to 45 days
  after the public hearing record closes, the NWB will
  issue a record of proceedings and a decision to the
  Minister of Northern Affairs.  If the Board decision is
  to grant the application, the Board will also attach
  the Minister's approval and draft of recommended
  amended and renewed water licence.
       That concludes the public hearing component of the
  Nunavut Water Board's consideration of LMI's water
  licence amendment and renewed application.
       That's it.  Thank you all, and the Board wishes to
  wish you all a good afternoon and have a good travel
  and a safe travel, everyone.  Now let's have a closing
  prayer.  Let's stand.
  Closing Prayer
  THE CHAIR:               Thank you.
  _______________________________________________________
  PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED
  _______________________________________________________

  

  

  

  

  

  
  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 27th day of January 2020.

  
  ________________________________
  Julie Albert, CSR(A)
  Official Court Reporter