application to renew water license n7l2-1645 public hearing - november 7-10, 2006 presentation by...

Application to Renew Water License N7L2-1645

• Public Hearing - November 7-10, 2006

• Presentation by Diavik Diamond Mines Inc.

Pictures for Mark

Lac de Gras

The Plant Site Today

Diesel power plant

Boiler plant

Permanent Accommodations

Administration / Maintenance Complex

Process Plant

Fuel Tanks

Sewage Treatment

Explosives Emulsion Plant

Water intake

Lac de Gras

Lac de Gras

Introduction

• Panel• Mr. Gord Macdonald – Lead DDMI Representative

• Mr. Scott Wytrychowski – DDMI Environment Manager

• Mr. Jeff Reinson – DDMI Manager of Infrastructure Construction

• Mr. Brad Armstrong and Ms. Melanie Smith - legal

• Experts• Mr. Geoff Beale – water management

• Mr. J.P. Bechtold – effluent quality criteria

• Dr. Alan Cameron – explosives management

• Mr. Don Chorley – hydrogeology

• Mr. Terry Eldridge – processed kimberlite storage and closure

• Ms. Amy Langhorne – aquatic effects monitoring

• Dr. Karsten Liber – aquatic toxicology

• Dr. Marcel Pineau – water treatment

• Mr. Erik Madsen – DDMI Northern Affairs Manager

Outline

• Overview of the Status of the Mine

• Renewal Application

• Status of Ammonia Management

• Status of Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan

• Status of Closure and Reclamation Plan

• Term of Water License

• Other Issues

• Final Summary

Outline

• Overview of the Status of the Mine• Overview of Mine• Current Development• Environmental Performance• Socio-Economic Performance• Planned Development• Summary

• Renewal Application





• Other Issues

• Final Summary

Overview

Plan vs Current

A154 Dike & Pit Area

Diavik Diamond Mine Site

PKC Area

North Inlet Storage Facility

North Country Rock Area

North Inlet Water Treatment Plant &

Discharge

A418 Dike & Future Pit Area

Water Management Area

Diavik Diamond Mine SitePKC Area

PKC Area

Primary Containment Dams

Secondary Containment Dam

Final Containment Dams Secondary Containment Dam


Pond 2Pond 3

Pond 1


A154 Pit and North Inlet Area

A154N

A154S

What is a cubic metre per day (m3/d)

20,000 m3/d

250,000 m3/d

• Coppermine River at Lac de Gras• 1,750,000 m3/d

• Coppermine River at Kugluktuk• 25,000,000 m3/d

A154 Pit Area

20,000

>100

>100

20,000

Mine SeepageDike Seepage

Final EffluentTreatment Plant

North Inlet

20,000

22

23

27

2120

2425

26

33

3231

29

28

1. Surface Runoff and Groundwater Stations

Surveillance Network Program

22

23

27

2120

24

25

26

33

3231

29

28

1. Surface Runoff and Groundwater Stations2. Source Water Quality

47

46

45

42

15

12

13

1642a

4952

48

11



22

23

27

2120

24

25

26

33

3231

29

28

1. Surface Runoff and Groundwater Stations2. Source Water Quality3. Final Effluent 4. Mixing Zone -Lac de Gras

47

46

45

42

15

12

13

1642a

4952

48

11

19a19c19b

18

19a19c

19b18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alum

inum

Amm

onia

Arsen

ic

Cadm

ium

Chrom

ium

CopperLea

d

Nicke

l

Phosphoru

sTSS

Zinc

Per

cen

t o

f E

ffec

t T

hre

sho

ldat

Mix

ing

Zo

ne

Bo

un

dar

y

Effect ThresholdDischargeBackground

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alum

inum

Amm

onia

Arsen

ic

Cadm

ium

Chrom

ium

CopperLea

d

Nicke

l

Phosphoru

sTSS

Turbid

ityZin

c

Pe

rce

nt

of

Ma

xim

um

Av

era

ge

Dis

ch

arg

e L

imit

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alum

inum

Amm

onia

Arsen

ic

Cadm

ium

Chrom

ium

CopperLea

d

Nicke

l

Phosphoru

sTSS

Turbid

ityZin

c

Per

cen

t o

f M

axim

um

Ave

rag

e D

isch

arg

e L

imit

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alum

inum

Amm

onia

Arsen

ic

Cadm

ium

Chrom

ium

CopperLea

d

Nicke

l

Phosphoru

sTSS

Zinc

Per

cen

t o

f E

ffec

t T

hre

sho

ldat

Mix

ing

Zo

ne

Bo

un

dar

y


Final discharge as percent ofLicense limit

Water quality at highest effluentexposure as a percent of effects threshold

Water and Waste Summary

Year Withdrawal from LDG Pumped from Mine Discharged from NIWTP

2000 0.01 - -

2001 0.18 - -

2002 0.46 - 4.1

2003 0.52 2.0 6.8

2004 1.16 4.0 4.7

2005 0.86 5.2 5.6

Annual Water Quantities (Mm3/y)

Water and Waste Summary

Annual Mine Waste Quantities

Process Kimberlite (Mt)

Waste Rock (Mm3)

Year Coarse Fine Type I Type II Type III

2002 - - - - -

2003 0.26 1.09 2.55 0.85 4.10

2004 0.38 1.60 3.64 1.57 5.63

2005 0.23 1.90 4.45 0.88 4.82

Environmental Performance

• Water Management and Monitoring

• Wasterock and PKC Management

• Compliance

• Effects less than EA Predictions

• No significant adverse effects on Lac de Gras

Socio-Economic PerformanceNorthern Commitments

C$1.2 billion

50% Aboriginal

80%Northern

73%Northern74%

Northern44%

Northern

ConstructionWorkforce

ConstructionContracts

OperationsWorkforce

Business Spending

20% Aboriginal

800 Workers

C$1.2 billion

50% Aboriginal

($600 m)

C$223 million (2005)

39% Aboriginal

35% Aboriginal

(256)

727 Workers

Source: Diavik 2005 SEMA Report

Aboriginal Business

Cumulative Total for All Aboriginal Business

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

C$

Mil

lio

ns

Min

ing

Op

erat

ion

s b

egin

Total Diavik Aboriginal Business Spend ~ $1 Billion

Diavik’s Growing Underground Future

Diavik Will Become an Underground Mine *

A154 Open-Pit A418 Open-Pit

A154/A418 Underground

* mine schedule subject to change due to market condictions, further resource evaluation, continued mine planning, etc.

Note: A21 pipe is pending further resource evaluation

2021 2022 20232017 2018 2019 20202013 2014 2015 20162009 2010 2011 20122005 2006 2007 2008

Full and Safe Closure Diavik Site - 2025


The Long Term Goal

Overview Summary

• Developed as planned.

• Proud of accomplishments.

• Proud of performance in Sustainable Development.

• Our challenge is to continue to improve into the future.

Outline


• Renewal Application• Overview of Application• Security Deposit• Renewal Workplan





• Other Issues

• Final Summary

Renewal Application

• Renewal of Water License N7L2-1645 filed on August 8, 2005.

• Application contains:• Part 1 - Application Form• Part 2 - Completed Mining Industry Questionaire with references on 3

CD’s• Part 3 – Consultation Summary• Part 4 – Overview and Status of N7L2-1645• Part 5 – Copy of Water License

• Application deemed complete – September 8, 2006.

• DDMI has not applied for any changes to Terms and conditions.

• Seek a 15 year term to coincide with expected duration of operations.

• With the Application, DDMI requested an exemption from Preliminary Screening.

• DDMI received exemption from Preliminary Screening – September 8, 2006.

Part B - Security

•Additional security amounts• Part B Item 2b

• Minister currently holds $153M in Security Deposits and this increases to $178M in 2007.

• The expected total Life of Project Closure Cost is $123M• Reference Schedule 1 - Environmental Agreement – Column (A)

• “Additional Security Deposit Amounts ” have been scheduled for the Life of Project

• Reference Schedule 1 - Environmental Agreement – Column (B)

Application cont’

Application cont’

• WLWB Renewal Workplan:• Renewal and Terms and Conditions• Progress with respect to ammonia and AEMP• Productive discussions at hearing

• DDMI written response to interventions submitted to WLWB October 30, 2006.

• DDMI Responded to specific intervener suggestions and recommendations with a focus on:• Changes to terms and conditions, including discharge

limit for total ammonia.• Ammonia Management Plan and proposed way forward.• AEMP and proposed way forward.

Outline


• The Application

• Status of Ammonia Management• Ammonia Overview• Draft Ammonia Management Plan• Total Ammonia Discharge Limit• Proposed Way Forward




• Other Issues

• Final Summary

Ammonia Management

Drilling

I&D Mgmt Services

Mixing & Placing Explosives

Western Denesoline Explosives

Blasting

Western Denesoline Explosives

Loading Holes

Western Denesoline

LoadingLoad & Haul

I&D Management Services

Ammonia Investigations

ADP

AMP

Terms of Reference

2004

2005

2006

Scope

Revised ADP

Addendum

other

Ammonia Management Plan

Ammonia Management Plan (AMP) - Objectives

1. To ensure that explosives are used and water is managed in such a way that ammonia losses do not result in a change in the trophic status of Lac de Gras or adverse environmental effects.

2. To continually work towards achieving the lowest practical ammonia levels in the mine water and final effluent discharge.

Additional Measures to Manage Ammonia

2006 2007 2008 2009

Explosives Management

Explosives Investigation

Explosives Implementation

A418 Water to PKC

Monitor A418

Decision on Water Use

Feasibility Engineering

Construction/Operations

Rock Wall Seepage

Phase I

Phase II

Treatment in North Inlet

Monitor NI

Quantify ammonia processing

Non-native Species Issue

Design Approval - NI Dams

Field Tests

Decision on Approach

Draft AMP - Content

• Additional measures to manage ammonia

• Management objectives

• Internal control levels

• Monitoring, controls and contingencies

• Additional monitoring requirements

• Review, reporting and corrective actions

Discharge Limit Total Ammonia

0

5

10

15

20

25

Level that is protective of the environment(Water-Quality based Approach)

Technology Limit(Technology Based Approach)

Estimated range of lowest practical level(Practically Achievable Approach)

To

tal A

mm

oni

a (

mg

/L)

Daily Maximum

Recommended Discharge Limit

• 20 mg/L daily maximum – water quality based approach• Protective of environment• Ensures no chronic toxicity• Ensures no acute toxicity with pH control• Consistent and recognized approach

• Ammonia Management Plan to achieve internal control levels.

Response to Interventions - Ammonia

• Round whitefish testing• Research on northern aquatic species

• Total ammonia discharge limit• Table 1 INAC Intervention

Water Source Sodium

(mg/L)

Potassium (mg/L)

pH Acute Toxicity

(mg/L NH3-N)

Chronic Toxicity

(mg/L NH3-N)

Lac de Gras 0.48 0.44 6.56 1.25 0.79

Effluent 50 14.1 7.2 132 83

Mixing zone 2.6 1.0 6.56 5.24 3.30

Borgmann and Borgmann (1997)

• Initial tests showing greater NH3 toxicity in softer water were run in artificial media diluted 90% with deionized water (no intermediate concentrations tested)

• Tests used to develop a model on the influence of Na+ and K+ on ammonia toxicity were only run in artificial media at two undocumented hardnesses

• The model slightly overestimated ammonia toxicity in Lake Ontario water

• The model substantially overestimated ammonia toxicity (by 6-9 fold) in Lake Superior water

• While Na+ and K+ can influence ammonia toxicity to Hyalella azteca in artificial media, there is no evidence that the Borgmann model is applicable to Lac de Gras conditions

Proposed Way Forward - Ammonia

• With discussions from these hearings:• submit that the Board will be in a position to approve

the AMP in accordance with Part H of the Water License, and

• the Board should be able to determine the long-term discharge limit for ammonia.

• DDMI proposes that the testing of round whitefish be developed as a research project with DDMI as a funding partner.

Summary Ammonia Presentation

• Provided information about Ammonia.

• Provided an overview of the draft AMP.• How it was developed• Management measures• Plan contents

• Proposed a way forward.• Approving the AMP• Setting an ammonia discharge limit• Round whitefish research

• Substantial progress has been made.

Outline


• The Application


• Status of Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan• Aquatic monitoring

• Project-related effects pathways

• 2001 AEMP

• 2006 AEMP

• Terms and Conditions

• Proposed Way Forward



• Other Issues

• Final Summary

Aquatic Effects Monitoring

Water QualityProject Activity (Location) Potential Change (Location)

Dikes(Lac de Gras)

Mine Water and Sewage Discharge

(Lac de Gras)

Infrastructure(Lac de Gras)

Durst and Air Emissions

(east island)

Increase in metals and nutrients through porewater release1

Increase in suspended sediment1

WQ-1

1=could occur during construction 2=could occur during operation3=could occur during closure 4=could occur during post-closureTSS = Total Suspended Solids TDS = Total Dissolved Solids

Environmental AssessmentPermitting

Fisheries Authorization· S35(2) Section 11/12

Aquatics Effects Monitoring Program· SNP Part B1-B13· Park K Item 6/7

· FA dissolved oxygen during construction S35(2) Section 10

Seepage Monitoring· SNP Part B14-15· Part F Item 11

Snow Quality Monitoring· Part K Item 7k

Mine Pit Dewatering and

Flooding(Lac de Gras)

Surveillance Network Program· SNP Part B21

Increase in sedimentation1

Leaching of metals and nutrients from the outside of the dikes1,2,3,4

Increase in suspended sediment due to breaching of dikes3

WQ-2

Introduction of metals, nutrients, TSS from mine water and sewage discharge1,2,3

WQ-3

Introduction of hydrocarbons, metals, nutrients, TSS through east island runoff1,2,3

WQ-4

Introduction of TSS through dust from transportation and air emissions1,2

WQ-5

Change in groundwater TDS1,2,3,4

Change in sedimentation due to introduction of TSS1,2

Water Quality

Water SupplyProject Activity (Location) Potential Change (Location)

Dikes and Mine Pits

(Lac de Gras)

Mine Water and Sewage Discharge

(Lac de Gras)

Water Withdrawal(Lac de Gras)

Infrastructure(east island)

Changes in surface area, water level and outflow of Lac de Gras due to dike construction1,2

Changes in surface area and outflow of Lac de Gras due to mine pit construction and dewatering1,2

Changes in Lac de Gras flow and water level due to discharge1,2

Changes in flow and water level in Lac de Gras due to changes in the hydrological conditions of the east island1,2,3,4

Changes in flow and water level due to removal of water from Lac de Gras1,2

1=could occur during construction 2=could occur during operation3=could occur during closure 4=could occur during post-closure


Water License· Part E, Item 8

Water License· Part B, Item E

Water License· Part B, Item 4· SNP Part C

Mine Pit Dewatering

(Lac de Gras)

Mine Pite Dewatering and

Flooding (Lac de Gras)

Changes in water level and outflow through interaction with groundwater1,2,3

Change in groundwater quantity due to mine pit dewatering, operation and refilling1,2,3,4

Water License· Part B, Item 4

Changes in water level and flow of Lac de Gras due to mine pit refilling3,4

Water Supply

FISHProject Activity (Location) Potential Change (Location)

Angling (Lac de Gras)

Use of Explosives(Lac de Gras)

Dike and North Inlet Closure and

Dewatering(Lac de Gras)

Water Withdrawal(Lac de Gras)

fish mortality due to fish harvest2

fish mortality due to hooking injuries2

free-swimming fish mortality due to instantaneous pressure change1,2

egg mortality due to changes in peak particle velocity1,2

fish mortality due to entrainment1,2

Dikes(Lac de Gras)

loss and gain of habitat due to dikes1,2,3,4

Infrastructure (east island)

changes in habitat quality due to changes in lake circulation1,2,3,4

loss of small lake habitats through lake alteration or destruction1,2,3,4

loss of stream habitats due to drainage basin changes1,2,3,4

Discharges, Dikes and Infrastructure(Lac de Gras, east

island)

Changes in fish tissue quality due to changes in water quality1,2,3

F-1

F-2

fish mortality due to stress and injuries during salvage1

F-3

F-4

F-5

F-6

F-7

1=could occur during construction 2=could occur during operation3=could occur during closure 4=could occur during post-closure


Fisheries Authorization· S35(2) Section 13

Fisheries Authorization· S32 Section 8

Fisheries Authorization· S35(2) Section 6.15

Fisheries Authorization· S30 Section 5

Fisheries Authorization· S35(2) Section 6.3, 8, 11



Fish

Effluent Detectable

Effluent Mixing Zone

Sediment and Invertebrates

Water Quality

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alum

inum

Amm

onia

Arsen

ic

Cadm

ium

Chrom

ium

CopperLea

d

Nicke

l

Phosphoru

sTSS

Zinc

Per

cen

t o

f E

ffec

t T

hre

sho

ldat

Mix

ing

Zo

ne

Bo

un

dar

y


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pe

rc

en

t o

f E

ffe

ct

Th

re

sh

old

at

LD

G 4

1


Project Related Effects - Results

Water quality effects monitoring results are within levels predicted in the EA.

Water use amounts are within levels predicted in the EA and have not caused impacts on water supply in Lac de Gras.

Monitoring of effects on fish have not identified any significant impacts and results are generally within EA predictions.

Dust deposition rates are currently higher than predicted in EA – ongoing construction.

Effluent Monitoring

Dike Monitoring

Snow Quality Monitoring

Runoff Monitoring

AEMP

AEMP Scope

TK and Community

2001 AEMP

• The scope of the AEMP was the subject of review at the February 27, 2001 DTC meeting #7.

• Final program design prepared and approved (July 2001) with DTC support.

• Some Water License items were explicitly not included.

2001 AEMP

• Approach was to set trigger values that if exceeded would raise a flag.

• Trigger values set conservatively low relative to EA effects levels.

• Trigger values not statistically-based.

• Trigger values set based on baseline data.

2006 AEMP Redesign

• INAC baseline review

• Diavik Technical Committee review

• EMAB review

• MVLWB review

• WLWB directive March 22, 2006

• 2006 AEMP to be viewed as effluent monitoring chapter of comprehensive AEMP

Why is 2006 AEMP improved?

• Follows national standards for mine effluent monitoring • MMEEM based on many years of research

• Objective clearly defined.

• Comparisons made between exposure and reference – minimal reliance on baseline data.

• Additional reference sites – added fish.

• VEC and measurement endpoints defined by program and linked to the EA thresholds.

• Two Parts:• 4 times per year water quality – every year

• 1 per year biological – every 3 years if no effects

• Formal statistical analysis.

Overview of 2006 AEMP DesignEffluent Monitoring Component

• Water Quality and Trophic Status• 13 exposure sampling points within 1% effluent plume

• 10 reference sampling points as far from effluent influence as practical

• 1 site at mouth of Coppermine River

• Consistent sampling methods at all sites

• Biological Sampling• Includes fish, benthic invertebrates and sediment sampling

• 10 exposure sampling points within 1% effluent plume

• 10 reference sampling points as far from effluent influence as practical

• Focus on area where changes most likely (exposure area)

• Results compared with results from reference areas

Effluent Monitoring Design Approaches

Distance

Con

cent

ratio

n

35

5

33

13

11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 3

Exposure-Reference

Gradient

Hybrid

Effl

uent

5

5

11

1 1 1 1 1 1 11

32 2 3

• Support intervener recommendations that:• Scope be as per Part K of expiring License.• Update to reflect work completed and exemptions that

have been granted.• Enable integration of other monitoring program results

to meet “project-related” requirement.• Annual AEMP for approval.• Other terms and conditions as noted in DDMI Response

October 30, 2006.

AEMP - Terms and Conditions

Proposed Way Forward - AEMP

• Comprehensive AEMP with• Effluent, snow quality, runoff, dikes and TK/community

• Immediate work to focus on effluent effects monitoring.

• DDMI proceed immediately to prepare comprehensive AEMP with Board direction on scope.

• Technical workshops on effluent monitoring in December and January – EC EEM Specialists requested to facilitate.

• Draft of consolidated AEMP – January 31,2007.

• Review from interested parties – February 15, 2007.

• WLWB approval – March 31, 2007.

• Begin implementation April 2007 (water quality) – full implementation (WQ plus biological) Summer 2007.

• DDMI committed to development of new AEMP through facilitated process.

• Ask Board to request all parties to make constructive proposals towards development of new AEMP.

AEMP Presentation Summary

• Provided overview of aquatic effects monitoring.

• Reviewed all the potential effects pathways from the Project to Lac de Gras.

• Summarized effects results

• Described the 2006 AEMP (effluent monitoring)

• Terms and Conditions

• Proposed Way Forward• Technical workshops to provide input• Implementation April 2007

• Substantial progress has been made.

Outline


• The Application



• Status of Closure and Reclamation Plan• Ongoing Research• Terms and Conditions• Proposed Way Forward


• Other Issues

• Final Summary



The Long Term Goal

Re-vegetation Research Study

North Inlet Water Treatment Plant Waste Sludge

Sewage Treatment Plant

Sludge

Lake Bottom Till

Soil Amendments

Fall Seeding

Continues Monitoring

Shrub Cuttings

Planting and Monitoring

Re-vegetation Research StudyYear 2 Plant Growth

Waste Rock Test Piles2003 (1st year of operations)

The Planning Began

2004 (2nd year of operations)Start Construction of the Tipping Platform

2005 (3rd year of operations) Construction of the Collection Drains

2006 (4th year of operations)Complete Construction of the Test Piles

1

4 3

2

World Class Research Team

Principle Researchers:

•Dr. David Blowes – University of Waterloo

•Dr. Leslie Smith – University of British Columbia

•Dr. Dave Sego – University of Alberta

Internal Reviewers:

•Dr. Paul Brown – Rio Tinto

•Dr. Ward Wilson – University of British Columbia

Supporters:

•DDMI

•National Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

•INAP, CFI & MEND

C&R Plan – Terms and Conditions

• Wording of Section L substantially carried forward

• Other terms and conditions as noted in DDMI Response October 30, 2006.

Proposed Way Forward – C&R Plan

• Recommend that the WLWB establish a process of review and finalization that:• Provides opportunity to review the draft,• Has realistic timelines,• Make submissions respecting revisions,• Allows participation in workshops or meetings, and• Works constructively towards approval of the Plan.

Outline


• The Application





• Other Issues

• Final Summary

Term of License

• Primary reasons given for shorter License is ability to comment and request changes.

• DDMI suggests that this process does exist.

• Requests Term of License as 15 years

Outline


• The Application





• Other Issues• Discharge limit for nitrate

• Final Summary

Other Issues - Nitrate

• Interveners recommend nitrate be added as a regulated parameter.

• DDMI accepts addition of nitrate as regulated parameter• Limit should be based on level that is protective of the

environment.• DDMI provided detailed calculations and rationale.• DDMI clarified comment regarding BHPB Toxicity Data.

Outline


• The Application





• Final Summary

Final Summary

• Reviewed the development, operation and future mine plans

• Reviewed the Renewal Application

• Reviewed Ammonia Management• Recommend discharge limit of 20 mg/L• Approve AMP• Recommend research on round whitefish

• Reviewed AEMP Scope/Purpose• Recommended scope for comprehensive AEMP• Proposed Way Forward - AEMP

• Closure and Reclamation• Proposed Way Forward – C&R Plan

Mahsi Cho

application to renew water license n7l2-1645 public hearing - november 7-10, 2006 presentation by...

Documents

gras slide

overview slide

water management area

north inlet area slide

site pkc area slide

issues final summary

a154n a154s slide

plan vs current slide