Tailings Contaminate Lake

[Merry]

British Columbia’s mines minister says the mining industry remains horrified a year after a tailings pond collapsed at the Mount Polley mine northeast of Williams Lake.

Bill Bennett said no one thought a crisis on such a scale was possible, but that even now, he can’t guarantee that another breach of a tailings pond won’t happen because only some of the risk factors can be eliminated.

“We didn’t eliminate enough of the risk, and we have to figure out, and we are figuring out, how to eliminate the rest of that risk,” he said of the Aug. 4, 2014 accident.

About 24 millions cubic metres of waste spilled into area waterways, causing an environmental disaster.

“It totally destroyed the creek that comes out of Polley Lake and flows past the tailings storage facility, past the mine, down into Quesnel Lake,” Bennett said. “You had millions of trees and roots and mud and all kinds of stuff in Quesnel Lake. It looked horrible, it was horrible.”

http://www.ohscanada.com/health-safety/ ... 003347975/

I can provide Bill with a few suggestions as to how to eliminate the rest of the risk:

1. Give the Ministry the authority to investigate how and why engineering firms can make the kind of error they made at Polley regarding the ground the dam was built on. Because surely, making sure the terrain is suitable for such a structure is a fundamental part of why engineers are hired in the first place? If not, it should be.
2. Allow for some kind of penalty when it can be proven that engineering companies did not perform their due diligence with regard to something like not checking whether or not the ground was suitable for such a structure.
3. Make sure that the Ministry employees are qualified enough, and knowledgeable enough, to be able to inspect such structures, and give them the authority to close the mine down temporarily if they determine it is in the interest of public safety. They should be able to invoke a 24 hour closure on the spot, rather than having to defer to Victoria for a decision first.
4. Stop relying on self reporting, and hire enough government inspectors to do the job.
5. Make companies accountable for decisions made by their managers, if it can be shown that they knowingly overlooked unsafe management decisions.
6. Hold individual managers responsible, if it can be shown that they overruled decisions made by professionals who were more qualified to make those decisions than the managers themselves.
7. Hold individual managers responsible, if it can be shown that they knowingly made unsafe decisions.

These are just a few examples of changes that would have prevented the Polley disaster. There are many more.

[Donald G]

*removed*

[Merry]

No Donald, I am not trying to imply anything at all regarding Polley with the use of my Pinocchio/Harper avatar.

When you attach an Avatar to your name, it shows up on ALL your posts, regardless of the topic.

[Glacier]

Hold on to your seats, and prepare to be shocked. Click on this link, and listen to the Williams Lake mayor Walt Cobb interview. Unbelievable. Quote:"The stuff that came out of there was water. There were no chemicals in that water..."

[erinmore3775]

In my opinion the most important comments that Merry made are these,

"Make sure that the Ministry employees are qualified enough, and knowledgeable enough, to be able to inspect such structures, and give them the authority to close the mine down temporarily if they determine it is in the interest of public safety. They should be able to invoke a 24 hour closure on the spot, rather than having to defer to Victoria for a decision first.

Stop relying on self reporting, and hire enough government inspectors to do the job.

Make companies accountable for decisions made by their managers, if it can be shown that they knowingly overlooked unsafe management decisions."

If you wish to be open and accountable these suggestions should have been implemented in the spring of this year. There is significant evidence that Imperial Metals was operating outside of its licence and paying only lip service to the reguations. Self regulation only works when unannounced spot checks can be made by inspectors with authority to issue tickets/sanctions in a similar way to fire, health, and or work safety inspectors.

Unfortunately this entire mine/environmental disaster remains cloaked in secrecy. Local citizens, the general public, media, or the mining industry can find little information. It has been swept under the rug, just like it never happened. How can the government and the mining industry hope to open new mines or expansions when they can not be transparent and honest with with the public. Expansion in this industry is just too important to be throttled by government stupidity and industry unwillingness to adopt new standards.

[Merry]

Unfortunately this entire mine/environmental disaster remains cloaked in secrecy. Local citizens, the general public, media, or the mining industry can find little information. It has been swept under the rug, just like it never happened. How can the government and the mining industry hope to open new mines or expansions when they can not be transparent and honest with with the public. Expansion in this industry is just too important to be throttled by government stupidity and industry unwillingness to adopt new standards.

Never at truer word was spoken.

Here we are, just over a year after the dam broke, and it's as if it never happened.

The mine is up and running once again, not one person was held to account, the company was never fined, and life has returned back to the way it was just before the incident happened.

Except the environmental and ecological damage will take years to undo (if ever).

And the bad management behaviour that led to the incident will probably be repeated, being as how there were no legal consequences.

Bad management behaviour that puts peoples lives at risk, harms the environment, and gives the entire industry a black eye, should be punished. Yet, in this case, nothing happened. Why is that?

[erinmore3775]

http://www.vancouversun.com/gibraltar+mine+wants+increase+amount+effluent+discharged+fraser+river/11395132/story.html

Gibraltar mine discharge increase

Unfortunately the environmental safety and citizen safety continues to mean little to BC Mines or BC Environment ministries. The amount of water stored in the Gibraltar tailings pond has to be reduced. The solution spill the water.

" However, Taseko has run into opposition from the Tsilhqot’in Nation which has concerns the tailings effluent will harm fish, including salmon and sturgeon. Vancouver-based Taseko says the water being released is clean, with less metals in many cases than levels naturally in the Fraser River.The company expects a decision soon, but the Ministry of Environment said timing is uncertain.The impasse highlights the difficulties the province has in navigating its effort to decrease effluent and water stored in tailings storage facilities, particularly as legal precedents have increased the requirements to consult and accommodate First Nations."

" The company has applied to increase the amount of water discharged from the tailings facility to 5.4 million cubic metres a year from 3.5 million cubic metres of water. The application is for a temporary increase, but the company wants to be able to make it permanent eventually.The Tsilhqot’in Nation says it is opposed because the increased discharge will harm its rights and river water quality and increase risks to fish habitat, fish health, and the health of animals such as deer. It will also increase fears among First Nations on using fish from the river, they say."

A company spokesman has indicated that stocked trout have grown to 4lbs in the tailings pond. However, he did not indicate whether his family regularly enjoyed the trout at their dinner table. Moly, sulphates and nitrates are all above drinking and environmental standards in the water the company wants to discharge. If the closed Brenda mine can lower these materials below minimum standards in their discharge water, then Taseko can do the same. The question remains what in our provincial government's eyes is more important health and safety of citizens and the environment or mining company profits? I believe most of us here already know that answer.

[Merry]

The Gibraltar mine request highlights the difficulty of balancing the practicalities of running a mine, with the potential for environmental harm and threat to human safety.

Because, when one follows the link erinmore posted, it turns out that it is the BC Government's regulation changes following the Mt. Polley disaster, that has resulted in the need for Gibraltar to make the request.

Taseko Mines Ltd. has applied to the province for a 50-per-cent increase in the water it discharges from its Gibraltar mine waste-storage facility into the Fraser River.

That would reduce the amount of water behind its earth dam, satisfying a recent request from the B.C. government made to all mines after Imperial Metal’s Mount Polley mine tailings dam failure last year.

It's important to remember that it was (in part) a failure to allow a timely release of water when necessary, that contributed to the dam breakage and ultimate release of the entire pond. So nowadays, if the level of the water is getting too close to the top of the dam, and putting the existence of what is known as "the beach" in jeopardy, the only prudent thing is to release some of the water before there is another disaster.

Although I'm not an advocate of allowing companies to release such water "willy nilly" it occurs to me that a controlled release (even with the problems that may entail) is preferable to having a repeat of what happened at Mt. Polley.

On the bright side (if there is one) it is true that the water in the dam is not as toxic as some claim. Which doesn't mean I'd go drink an untreated glass of it, but it is true that fish live in many tailings ponds. And, if released in small amounts and then diluted in the river, the level of pollution will likely be negligible.

So, in my opinion, a timely controlled release is better than allowing the pond level to increase and possibly cause another dam breach. Because the ensuing disaster would be far worse than what happened at Mt. Polley.

The real issue of course is what should the long term solution be? Insist the mine build a second tailings pond? Or tell them to cut back production so that their current tailings pond is better able to handle the waste water? Or insist they improve their waste water treatment so that the stuff going into the river is as pure as science can make it?

There are lots of options, but the fact is we need to have the discussion about just what those options are. And I've yet to hear that discussion.

However, in the meantime, in the interests of safety, I think a timely release might be the best short term option (unpalatable as that may be).

[erinmore3775]

Merry, while I agree with you that a timely release of tailing pond water is prudent to prevent spillage, beach erosion, or partial dam failure, I can not support the government's unwillingness to force the industry to significantly improve pond water treatment. Even the announcement of new regulations to be implemented at the end of a five year development period would be better than what they are doing now. Mining development is too important to be left under the current regulations and enforcement. As it stands now communities where new mines are to be developed or even where current mines are located, are left with lingering questions about environmental and community health and safety. Developments and expansion are being delayed. Its time for the industry and government to work together to improve regulations and enforcement for the long term benefit of all.

[Smurf]

Agreed and I believe that thy should be forced to treat their water to the highest standards available today and continue to improve as method improve. That should b an automatic requirement if they want to release any water.

[Glacier]

The difference between Mount Polly (and to a lesser extend Gibraltar) and Prosperity in the Chilcotin is that the Chilcotin is much drier and thus would not require water release since more water evaporates than precipitates.

[maryjane48]

i hope the first nations stop every mining drilling project in bc until someone goes under the bus for this mess. i wonder how many folks by mt polley mine will vote for crusty

[GrooveTunes]

Since I don't have a job, :), I had a chance to go see this mess for myself. The sign wasn't what stopped me seeing it close up so unfortunately I didn't get any photos.

[erinmore3775]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-149251-58-.htm#149251

This Castanet article illustrates the clear difference between the BC and the Alaskan approach to transparency regarding the mining regulations and public information between the two jurisdictions. The reason for the difference; public interest. Most British Columbians have little knowledge about the mining industry and place little value on its regulation or its effect on the environment. This is because most BC citizens live in the lower mainland or in the Victoria areas. Since they have little contact with the effects or benefits of resource development, they see little reason to be concerned or to put more pressure on their government to be more transparent and effective.

Until BC citizens become less complacent, nothing is going to change. However, from an economic standpoint, the government must become more transparent if they are going to negotiate new resource openings with BC's northern native people. Resource and environmental relations will only improve with Alaska if transparency improves and existing regulations and standards are regularly and religiously enforced. BC citizens should demand no less.

[Merry]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-149251-58-.htm#149251

For me the most significant part of the story you cited was this:

It's little wonder Alaskans have difficulty trusting B.C. when it's known that in the years leading up to the Mount Polley incident the provincial government permitted substantial increases in mining, beyond the design capacity of the tailings facility. Furthermore, in 2010, the government was told about cracks across the front of the retaining wall.

Because those two sentences sum up precisely what should never have happened at Mt. Polley with regard to both company and government oversight.

The company and/or it's officers should have been fined for failing to provide adequate oversight to detect problems before they became even bigger problems, and should also have been fined for not taking appropriate action when certain problems did come to light (such as the initial discovery of the crack in the dam, and again when they realized the water level was getting so high the "beach" was virtually non existant).

And any Government employees who failed to take timely action when issues were first brought to their attention should be disciplined, or fired as appropriate.

Finally, the Government should ensure that there is adequate Government oversight of such industrial developments, and stop relying on self reporting. Because the latter leaves the door open to individuals making very bad decisions, in an attempt to further their own career paths. I'm not saying that's what happened at Polley, because I don't think it was ever proven, but I am saying that poor Government oversight makes such things possible.

most BC citizens live in the lower mainland or in the Victoria areas. Since they have little contact with the effects or benefits of resource development, they see little reason to be concerned or to put more pressure on their government to be more transparent and effective.

Until BC citizens become less complacent, nothing is going to change.

Sad but true.

I think the lack of lasting public anger about what happened is what struck me the most about this whole incident.

Here we have a situation where the largest dam breach in Canadian mining history almost kills people, and does significant harm to the environment, and yet only a few months later it seemed as though it had never happened in the minds of many.

It's hard to equate that with images we see on our news almost every day, of protesters making a fuss about things that pale in significance when compared to what happened at Polley.

However, from an economic standpoint, the government must become more transparent if they are going to negotiate new resource openings with BC's northern native people. Resource and environmental relations will only improve with Alaska if transparency improves and existing regulations and standards are regularly and religiously enforced. BC citizens should demand no less.

Very true erinmore. You've hit the nail on the head.

If we want more industrial development in this Province, we need to be able to reassure both our Alaskan neighbours and our First Nations people that we will make sure that it will be done in a responsible way.

Regular, meaningful Government oversight is a first step. But holding both companies and their representatives accountable for bad decisions that could result in either loss of life, or significant harm to the environment, is also very important.