Tailings Contaminate Lake

[flamingfingers]

‘Sense of coverup’ on Mount Polley safety reports, NDP leader charges


By Rob Shaw, Vancouver Sun September 26, 2014


VICTORIA — The B.C. government’s refusal to release inspection reports for the Mount Polley mine dam is “nonsense” and smells like a coverup, according to the province’s Opposition leader.

NDP leader John Horgan said Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett has a public obligation to explain what, if anything, the government did to address a tension crack in the earthen dam that was highlighted in a 2010 safety inspection the province has tried to keep hidden.

“To have a four-year-old record showing a 10- to 15-metre tension crack at the mine site is something the government should have responded to,” said Horgan. “If Mr. Bennett has nothing to hide, he should demonstrate government took this information and acted upon it.”

The government again refused Friday to discuss the report or provide subsequent inspection reports from 2011-2013, citing that it can’t share any information during its ongoing investigation into how the dam breached.

“Government must protect the integrity and independence of these investigations to ensure that we do not compromise the ability to prosecute under the Mines Act or other legislation, should the investigation determine that to be warranted,” Environment Minister Mary Polak said in a statement.

“The suggestion that government should provide comments or information that could compromise these investigations is completely irresponsible.”

The government won’t release the full 2010 report either. But The Vancouver Sun located it in the Cariboo Regional District Library in Williams Lake, where mine owner Imperial Metals has filed previous annual environmental and reclamation reports.

“It strikes me that rather than full transparency we have a sense of coverup,” said Horgan. “And I would expect Mr. Bennett would want to clear his good name and the name of the energy ministry by releasing every scrap of paper.”

The government’s insistence that it is somehow prohibited from releasing any previous inspection reports or other information during its investigation into the breach is ridiculous, said Horgan, because it was the province that set the investigation’s terms of reference and appointed its investigators.

“It’s nonsense,” he said. “The inquiry in no way hampers their ability to release information they were responsible for.”

Premier Christy Clark said the dam crack information obtained by The Sun is forming part of her government’s inquiry.

“We are in the midst of an incredibly important independent inquiry,” she told radio station CKNW on Friday.

“We are going to get the answer about what happened. We are sparing no one in looking at that, in making sure the contents of the article today in The Sun are in the hands of the folks who have been investigating this for awhile. We have to figure out what happened.”

Clark said getting answers is “urgent” because there are other mines similarly operating in the province. She brushed aside any suggestion that a private fundraiser from the controlling shareholder of Imperial Metals Corp. in 2012 — which raised $1 million for her party’s re-election bid — has in any way compromised her government’s handling of the breach.

[email protected]

[Merry]

While I do understand the need for the Government to be very careful what they say so as not to compromise the laying of any possible charges at some future date, I don't see how releasing factual information surrounding a four year old event could pose such a problem.

Because whatever happened (or didn't happen) four years ago, and the effect that has on the laying of a possible charge, won't be affected just because more people find out about it after the fact. Because facts are facts regardless of whether one person or a million knows what those facts are. It is careless opinion by those involved that can affect the laying of charges, and nobody is asking the Government to give their opinion on the matter. All that is being asked is that they release the information regarding what was observed back then, and what, if anything, the Ministry told the mine to do about it.

If anything the Ministry did 4 years ago could compromise the laying of a charge today, then that will still be the case regardless of whether the Public knows or doesn't know what happened. Because, as I already stated, facts are facts and whatever did or did not happen cannot be changed merely by keeping it quiet.

The Government is right not to do anything that might compromise either the investigation or the possible laying of charges, but I fail to see how that translates into a need for a complete wall of silence. They should release as much factual information as possible, and stop making it look as though they're party to a cover up.

[Merry]

You and I always pay for the mistakes of industry be they mines or wines.

I agree Glacier, and that is one of the things that has got to change.

Legislation requiring companies to carry adequate insurance would be a good first start. While I acknowledge that it may not be possible to get enough insurance to cover every eventuality, allowing a mine to only carry 15 million liability coverage is ridiculous.

Second, given that we, the taxpayer, may have to pick up at least part of the tab when something catastrophic happens, it is in our best interest to make sure that things are built and maintained in such a way as to minimize risk. The Mining Association guidelines covering good tailings facility management, that responsible companies are currently choosing to follow, ought to be legislated requirements. Because if they cover things that responsible mining companies consider necessary, WHY wouldn't the Government consider them to be necessary enough to make them a requirement?

But it's no good passing a law to make those guidelines requirements if we don't also ensure we have enough Government inspectors to monitor and enforce compliance. Allowing mining companies to conduct their own annual dam inspections and to self report problems, is akin to letting the fox watch the chicken coop.

There's an old saying about it being silly to be "penny wise yet dollar foolish" which is what the Government is doing when they try to save money on things such as Government Inspectors. Because, at the end of the day, if the lack of adequate oversight results in taxpayers having to foot the bill to clean up the consequences, then the cost to us all is a lot higher.

[Glacier]

Legislation requiring companies to carry adequate insurance would be a good first start.

I have not looked into this, but it could be the case that requiring "adequate insurance" would be cost prohibitive to 95% of mines, and thus would effectively shut down mining in the province. Insurance is becoming increasingly expensive these days.

[flamingfingers]

I have not looked into this, but it could be the case that requiring "adequate insurance" would be cost prohibitive to 95% of mines, and thus would effectively shut down mining in the province. Insurance is becoming increasingly expensive these days.

The only reason why insurance is progressively more expensive is because insurance companies look at the cost of claims they have had to pay out and adjust their premiums to reflect the CODB. If there were fewer claims due to mismanagement, negligence and 'for cause' (liability) insurance would be much cheaper. But in the case of mining, the companies who only insure for a lousy $15 million are more concerned with immediate profit and cause other more conscientious and 'play by the rules' mining projects financial pain because of increased premiums. The mining industry in general should be asking a LOT of questions about Imperial and the Mt Polley dam breach!!

[Glacier]

Without knowing the cost of insurance it's hard to say.

[Merry]

There is no doubt that liability insurance would be very expensive. And I agree that it is doubtful most mines could afford enough insurance to cover every eventuality. But that said, 15 million is a paltry amount.

I would think that 100 million would be an affordable amount for most companies and, while that still would not be enough to cover all possible scenarios, it would go a long way to relieving the burden on the taxpayer.

The bottom line is that mines should be made to carry higher insurance coverage than just 15 million, because that's a mere "drop in the bucket" to a multi million dollar industry.

[Merry]

The following is an excerpt from an article that discusses the issue of adequate coverage for environmental liability in the United States (my bold).

A bedrock principle of environmental law and regulation is that pollution costs should be borne by their creators. U.S. environmental laws and regulations gives this principle form by making polluters liable for property, health, and natural resource damages and unperformed resource reclamation obligations. Unfortunately, many environmental obligations, despite being well defined in theory and in law, are not always met in practice. Bankruptcy, corporate dissolution, and outright abandonment are a disturbingly common means by which polluters avoid responsibility for environmental costs.

Financial assurance rules, also known as financial responsibility or bonding requirements, address this policy problem. Assurance rules require potential polluters to demonstrate – before the fact – financial resources adequate to correct and compensate for environmental damage that may arise in the future. Accordingly, assurance acts as an important complement to liability rules, restoration obligations, and other compliance requirements. A benefit of assurance rules is that they can harness the expertise and scrutiny of private, third-party financial providers. The insurers, sureties, and banks who provide the financial products used to demonstrate compliance, for their own commercial reasons, train an extra, self-interested set of eyes on the financial and environmental risks posed by potential polluters. In this way, assurance rules can yield a flexible, market-based approach to compliance and monitoring.

Financial assurance is demanded of a wide variety of U.S. commercial operations, including municipal landfills, ships carrying oil or hazardous cargo, hazardous waste treatment facilities, offshore oil and gas installations, underground gas tanks, wells, nuclear power stations, and mines. Firms needing assurance can purchase it in the form of insurance, surety obligations, bank letters of credit, and deposit certificates. Alternatively, firms can establish trust funds or escrow accounts dedicated to future obligations. Most programs allow wealthy and financially stable firms to comply via demonstration of an adequate domestic asset base and high-quality bond rating. A wealthy financial parent can in some cases guarantee the obligations of a subsidiary or affiliate via an indemnity agreement.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cserge/Boyd.pdf

[Merry]

I found the following on an insurance company website. And, while the information is obviously "self serving" it is nevertheless an interesting read (my bold):

developments in Europe, for example, show that increased public awareness of pollution usually results in more stringent legislation regarding pollution protection and liability regimes. A better understanding of potential liabilities related to pollution will help operators apply adequate risk management options. Operators' risk management considerations may include actions to change production processes, to implement environmental management systems, to reduce their environmental footprint, or to buy insurance to protect their assets against unforeseeable and unexpected pollution events.

Instead of buying gradual pollution insurance, operators are increasingly looking for insurance solutions that cover the legal requirements following sudden/accidental pollution events to clean-up contaminated land/water, as well as the costs of restoring environmental or natural resources damage.
The environmental impact of the gradual emission of pollutants can be best dealt with by technical measures or management decisions. It is because sudden/accidental pollution events, in whatever state-of-the-art environmental management systems, are not predictable and may lead to severe financial consequences for the operators. Environmental pollution liability insurance is perceived as an effective instrument for protecting operators against claims based on environmental pollution liability regimes.

What's more, insurance usually requires operators to have risk management measures in place, such as fire/premises protection, operation monitoring, emergency planning and environmental management systems. These can help operators identify, evaluate, mitigate and report on any unexpected factors driving large loss potentials, and therefore help reduce the number of incidents, mitigate or even avoid economic losses. These can also help insurers better understand the risks underwritten so as to ensure adequate risk premiums.

http://www.swissre.com/reinsurance/insu ... China.html

[Merry]

The following outlines the insurance requirements for new mines in Columbia. I don't know what the quoted percentages would translate into if applied to Polley, but that's not the point. The point is that even a small country such as Columbia has regulations governing how much environmental liability insurance mining companies must carry.

Does BC have similar legislation, and if so is the amount required adequate? Alternatively, if BC does not have such legislation, why is that?

Under law 685 of 2001, the title holder must furnish a mining and environmental insurance policy. During the exploration phase, the insured amount must be of 5 per cent of the value of the planned annual exploration expenditures. For the construction phase, the insured value must be of 5 per cent of the planned investment for assembly and construction. During the exploitation phase the insurance policy will have to cover 10 per cent of the result of multiplying the estimated annual production by the mine pit price of the extracted mineral, as established by the Colombian government

http://latinlawyer.com/reference/topics ... /colombia/

[Merry]

This article from the Vancouver Sun provides an update on what is currently happening re the cleanup (my bold):

a plan of attack has emerged and trucks are once again moving on the mine site, although the mine remains closed.

The plan includes blocking the hole in the tailings dam with an earth and rock dike, collecting water that seeps through the dike (which is not waterproof), repairing roads and bridges to create better access to Hazeltine Creek, and probing Quesnel Lake to determine the effect of the spill.

“We think we are making good progress,” said Steve Robertson, vice-president of corporate affairs for Imperial Metals.
With the water emptied, the tailings storage facility seems like an alien world.

There are large areas of flat, reddish bare ground — where only the recent imprints of some large bird mark its surface. There are also deep valleys and jagged edges carved out by the rush of the water when the dam collapsed. These type of mine facilities are often referred to as tailings ponds, but this one is anything but a pond.

Like everything at the mine site, the tailings storage facility is big. At about four square kilometres, the tailings inside comprise finely ground rock that remains after the milling process. They contain potentially toxic heavy metals that are a concern to human health, animals and aquatic life.

It has taken nearly two months, but workers called back after the collapse have completed a 500-metre dike to keep the tailings from washing away in rain or snow melt into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake.

The earth and rock dike is only a temporary structure, but will be in place until an investigation into the dam failure is complete, and when Imperial Metals has determined how the original dam might be fixed or rebuilt. (Robertson declined to discuss reasons for the failure while the investigation is underway).

The temporary dike is porous, which is why a water collection pond system has been built downstream and another is under construction inside the tailings facility itself. The collected water from the ponds will be pumped back up to the mine site into one of the large holes dug out to get at the ore, commonly called pits.

The company has also been draining Polley Lake (adjacent to the mine site) with pumps because its level was raised when water washed into it from the dam breach, and the lake’s outlet was plugged by tailings. Enough water has been drained now that it has been deemed safe enough for work to start below the breach in the lower reaches of Hazeltine Creek. The company and the province were concerned that heavy rains could have released another rush of water, tailings and sediment if the plug had let loose.

Once Polley Lake has been returned to its normal level, a new channel will be created to provide an outlet to Hazeltine Creek.

Work on the collection ponds was visible on a recent tour of the mine site, but Polley Lake and the area below the breach were off limits due to safety concerns. The Cariboo Regional District has also kept a state of emergency in place to keep the public away from the mine site because of safety concerns.

The general thrust of Imperial Metals’ creek rehabilitation plan is to create a series of collection pools along Hazeltine Creek so that sediment can be filtered out before water reaches Quesnel Lake. The province’s environment ministry has not given approval to that rehabilitation plan, saying it must first review data from a series of samples of tailings and sediment taken along the creek by the company.

The original five-metre-wide creek — scoured by the millions of tonnes of water, tailings, timber and other debris — is as much as 30 metres wide now and much wider at the delta at Quesnel Lake.

Imperial Metals does not believe it will make sense to remove sediment and tailings from the creek, an expensive proposition that the company says could create more damage.

The company’s belief is predicated on its position that the tailings are relatively benign and will not produce acid that would release heavy metals into the environment. While the rock that has been milled in its mine does contain acid-generating pyrite, the acid-generating potential is neutralized by the significant amount of carbonate in the rock, says Robertson.
“It’s the same thing when you think of your stomach acid and Tums. Well, we don’t have one Tums, we have a whole box of Tums — so it’s a very, very neutralizing environment,” he said.

Vancouver-based SRK Consulting, in a 2012 review for the company of years-long lab tests of mine samples, found that it would take decades to produce acid drainage in most of the rock at Mount Polley. Nevertheless, Robertson acknowledges that continued testing will be needed. “We are going to make sure we do the scientific testing and have the data to be able to demonstrate over a long period of time that things are safe,” he said.

The province’s environment ministry has also said as much, noting that samples of tailings have shown low but “potentially significant” arsenic and selenium concentration that will need monitoring.

While it’s possible it may make sense to leave some tailings in place, others may need to be returned to the mine site, said Hubert Bunce, an environment ministry director appointed recently to head the Mount Polley file.
And while Bunce noted historical data suggests the mine does not have an acid-generating problem, he said one of the concerns is how the material will evolve over time.“Will it leach in the future? And will that occur in the next year or in the next 10 years or in the next 100 years? And what does that mean for plants, both terrestrial and subaqueous, that may colonize it, and the animals that might eat that?” noted Bunce. “So, that’s what the long-term monitoring programs will attempt to ascertain. But obviously it’s premature at this point to make any guesses as to what that may be.”

There is also the issue of Quesnel Lake.
Imperial Metals does not have a cleanup plan for the lake, or know whether it will be necessary.To determine what needs to be done in Quesnel Lake, the company is awaiting results from its consultant Tetra Tech EBA, which has a 37-foot research boat on the lake carrying out bottom sampling and water testing, Robertson said.

Tetra Tech EBA is part of a coterie of consultants — including SNC Lavalin and Golder Associates — hired by Imperial Metals to work on a cleanup plan.

Bunce said the environment ministry is also waiting for the results of the lake tests.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Imperial+cl ... z3Ejgeu2S7

I note the mine spokesman's comparison of the tailings sludge to "Tums". Maybe they should start marketing the stuff to help pay for the cleanup. It could be swilled down a spoonful of that water that Kynoch said he'd be happy to drink!!!!
Mmmm, yummy!

[erinmore3775]

Unfortunately, Merry, this article accurately depicts the mantra and the effort from Imperial Metals in mitigating this disaster. It is my opinion that the company will try and pawn off as much of the cleanup as possible onto the province and eventually the taxpayers of BC. At they same time they will try and operate their company to maximize their profit.

When this event occurred there were many on this forum who tried to play down the effects of this dam breach. I notice that their comments are conspicuously absent at this time. While this is an environmental disaster, the real disaster is on the mining industry. Since Imperial Metals continues to reduce its efforts and responsibility and no one in the industry is calling them into account, it will be disastrous for the next mining company that tries to get a permit in BC. Already the effects of the Mt Polley breach are casting their shadows over the Ajax mine development. This industry effects of this disater will have to be lived with for years to come.

[Merry]

the real disaster is on the mining industry. Since Imperial Metals continues to reduce its efforts and responsibility and no one in the industry is calling them into account, it will be disastrous for the next mining company that tries to get a permit in BC. Already the effects of the Mt Polley breach are casting their shadows over the Ajax mine development. This industry effects of this disaster will have to be lived with for years to come.

I agree.

There are many operating mines which are being run responsibly and without incident. And although this mess at Mt. Polley ought not to be a reflection on those well managed mines, if the perception of a "cover up" at Polley is allowed to continue, it will have negative ramifications on the entire mining industry, whether deserved or not.

It is time for the industry itself to insist that Government make changes designed to prevent irresponsible managers from making the kinds of decisions that could hurt the future of mining in this Province. Operating methods that are deemed to be "good practise" by responsible mine management, that may not be being practised by all, need to be made requirements which are then monitored and enforced. Such changes would not hurt those who are already acting responsibly, but would help catch any "rogue" managers who are not.

If the demand for these changes were to come from the Mining Industry itself, it would go a long way to repairing the damage caused to their image by the catastrophe at Polley.

[Merry]

Honourable Christy Clark
Premier of British Columbia
PO Box 9041
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria, BC, V8W 9E1
Via facsimile: (250) 387-1715

Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900

RE: OPEN LETTER regarding Union of BC Indian Chiefs Resolution 2014-17, “Support for Xat’sull and Williams Lake First Nations, Call for Public Inquiry and Mining Reform in the Aftermath of the Mount Polley Disaster”

Dear Premier Clark and Prime Minister Harper,

We are writing with respect to UBCIC Resolution 2014-17, “Support for Xat’sull and Williams Lake First Nations, Call for Public Inquiry and Mining Reform in the Aftermath of the Mount Polley Disaster” (enclosed) which was endorsed unanimously by the Chiefs-in-Assembly on September 18, 2014.

On August 4, 2014 the Mount Polley tailings pond breached and resulted in the worst mining disaster in British Columbia’s history. The breach resulted in 10 billion litres of contaminated water and 5 billion litres of solid tailings waste into Polley Lake, down Hazeltine Creek into Quesnel Lakes and River which directly connects to the Fraser River Watershed. As a result of this disastrous breach, significant concerns have been raised by local First Nations of the water quality, impacts to food fish and the surrounding ecosystem.

The Mount Polley disaster highlights the inadequacy of existing Provincial laws, regulations and policies with respect to mining in the Province, consequently, as per the enclosed resolution UBCIC calls on your governments to hold a full and thorough public inquiry to:
1. Bring about the full disclosure of the record of facts;
2. To understand the current inadequacy of existing provincial laws, regulations, standards, and policies with respect to mining in British Columbia; and
3. To facilitate significant mining reform in the Province of British Columbia.

Also troubling is the recent release of the 2010 safety inspection report of the Mount Polley dam which showed a significant crack in the structure that contains the toxic materials within the pond. It is with this resolution and the release of this frightening new information that we urgently call on your governments to move forward with a full public inquiry. We look forward to your immediate reply.


On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
President

Chief Robert Chamberlin
Vice-President

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson
Secretary-Treasurer

CC: UBCIC Chiefs Council
Xat’sull First Nation
Williams Lake Indian Band

Read more: Mount Polley Disaster: Support for Xat’sull and Williams Lake Nations, Call for Public Inquiry and Mining Reform

[Atomoa]

Would the Province of BC's response to this disaster and "facilitator of conditions that lead up to it" be a indicator of their preventative efforts and/or response to a future potential oil tanker spill / pipeline rupture?

I hope not.

Something to think about.