December 2014December 2014December 2014December 2014Environmental Update Environmental Update pp

for SLEMA Boardfor SLEMA BoardZh LiZh LiZhong LiuZhong Liu

December 31, 2014December 31, 2014

OutlineOutlineOutlineOutline1.1. Mine UpdateMine Update2.2. Inspection UpdateInspection Update3.3. Regulators’ UpdateRegulators’ Update3.3. Regulators UpdateRegulators Update4.4. Aboriginal UpdateAboriginal Update55 Stakeholders’ UpdateStakeholders’ Update5.5. Stakeholders’ UpdateStakeholders’ Update6.6. Agency’s ActivitiesAgency’s Activities7.7. SLEMA ReviewsSLEMA Reviews8.8. WaterWater LicenceLicence Amendment ApplicationAmendment Application8.8. Water Water LicenceLicence Amendment Application Amendment Application

AcronymsAcronymsAcronymsAcronyms AANDC AANDC –– Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

(previous INAC (previous INAC –– India and Northern Affairs Canada)India and Northern Affairs Canada) AEMPAEMP –– Aquatic Effects Monitoring ProgramAquatic Effects Monitoring Program AEMP AEMP Aquatic Effects Monitoring ProgramAquatic Effects Monitoring Program ARD ARD –– Acid Rock DrainageAcid Rock Drainage DFO DFO –– Fisheries and Oceans CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada EC EC –– Environment CanadaEnvironment Canada ENR ENR –– Department of Environment and Natural Resources, GNWTDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources, GNWT EQC EQC -- Effluent Quality CriterionEffluent Quality Criterion GNWT GNWT –– Government of the Northwest TerritoriesGovernment of the Northwest Territories MVLWB MVLWB –– Mackenzie Valley Land and Water BoardMackenzie Valley Land and Water Board PK PK –– Processed Processed KimberliteKimberlite SLEMA SLEMA –– Snap Lake Environmental Monitoring AgencySnap Lake Environmental Monitoring Agency SNPSNP Surveillance Network ProgramSurveillance Network Program SNP SNP –– Surveillance Network ProgramSurveillance Network Program SSWQO SSWQO –– Site Specific Water Quality ObjectiveSite Specific Water Quality Objective TDS TDS –– Total Dissolved SolidsTotal Dissolved Solids WEMPWEMP –– Wildlife Effects Monitoring ProgramWildlife Effects Monitoring Program WEMP WEMP –– Wildlife Effects Monitoring ProgramWildlife Effects Monitoring Program WTP WTP –– Water Treatment PlantWater Treatment Plant WMP WMP –– Water Management PondWater Management Pond

1.1 Mine Update1.1 Mine Update –– November 2014November 20141.1 Mine Update 1.1 Mine Update November 2014November 2014 Production rate: 68.9% of its capacity (65,141 Production rate: 68.9% of its capacity (65,141 tonnestonnes of of

kimberlitekimberlite processed)processed)22 14222 142 33 f t ithd f S L kf t ithd f S L k 22,142 m22,142 m33 of water withdrawn from Snap Lake of water withdrawn from Snap Lake

1,392,638 m1,392,638 m33 of treated water discharged into Snap of treated water discharged into Snap LakeLake

35,709 35,709 tonnestonnes of coarse reject and 36,427 mof coarse reject and 36,427 m33 of slimes of slimes deposited in the North Piledeposited in the North Pile

No reportable spillsNo reportable spills No reportable spillsNo reportable spills Water sampled in 6 monitoring stations Water sampled in 6 monitoring stations

The monthly average for all parameters met complianceThe monthly average for all parameters met compliance

1.2 Spill Reporting in December 20141.2 Spill Reporting in December 20141.2 Spill Reporting in December 20141.2 Spill Reporting in December 2014

No spill reports received in DecemberNo spill reports received in DecemberNo spill reports received in December No spill reports received in December 20142014

1.3 Thallium and Cesium in Fish 1.3 Thallium and Cesium in Fish Tissue Response PlanTissue Response Plan

Submitted on December 1, 2014Submitted on December 1, 2014 “Concentrations of two rare metals, cesium and “Concentrations of two rare metals, cesium and

thallium, which are very low in Snap Lake surface thallium, which are very low in Snap Lake surface waters and are not increasing in sediment werewaters and are not increasing in sediment werewaters and are not increasing in sediment, were waters and are not increasing in sediment, were found to be increasing in fish tissue. As a result, De found to be increasing in fish tissue. As a result, De Beers has developed a Response Plan to determine Beers has developed a Response Plan to determine what these results mean and whether management what these results mean and whether management actions are required.”actions are required.”

“No management actions are currently required as“No management actions are currently required as No management actions are currently required as No management actions are currently required as there is no risk to fish or humans. De Beers will there is no risk to fish or humans. De Beers will continue to monitor and report on concentrations of continue to monitor and report on concentrations of

i d th llii d th lli i ffl t t di t di ffl t t di t dcesium and thalliumcesium and thallium in effluent, water, sediment, and in effluent, water, sediment, and in Lake Chub, Round Whitefish, and Lake Trout in the in Lake Chub, Round Whitefish, and Lake Trout in the AEMP.”AEMP.”

1.4 Air Quality Action Level III 1.4 Air Quality Action Level III ExceedanceExceedanceE t l R i d A ti PlE t l R i d A ti PlExternal Review and Action PlanExternal Review and Action Plan

Technical Memorandum prepared byTechnical Memorandum prepared by Technical Memorandum prepared by Technical Memorandum prepared by GolderGolder Associates on December 3, 2014Associates on December 3, 2014

The observed percent increase of SO2 NO2The observed percent increase of SO2 NO2 The observed percent increase of SO2, NO2, The observed percent increase of SO2, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 exceeded the allowable PM10 and PM2.5 exceeded the allowable yearyear--toto--year percent increase defined in theyear percent increase defined in theyearyear toto year percent increase defined in the year percent increase defined in the Air Quality and Emissions Monitoring and Air Quality and Emissions Monitoring and Management Plan (AQEMMP) in 2013Management Plan (AQEMMP) in 2013

The Technical Memorandum provides the The Technical Memorandum provides the plan to address the plan to address the exceedancesexceedances, including , including an evaluation of the data and further an evaluation of the data and further suggested actionssuggested actions

1 5 Water Use Update1 5 Water Use Update1.5 Water Use Update1.5 Water Use Update

Submitted on December 8 2014Submitted on December 8 2014 Submitted on December 8, 2014Submitted on December 8, 2014 Proposed a change to the Water Proposed a change to the Water

Management Plan section 2 1 3 (Raw WaterManagement Plan section 2 1 3 (Raw WaterManagement Plan section 2.1.3 (Raw Water Management Plan section 2.1.3 (Raw Water Supply System) and 2.5 (Water Balance Supply System) and 2.5 (Water Balance Estimates). The planned water withdrawal Estimates). The planned water withdrawal ) p) pfrom Snap Lake is expected to be from Snap Lake is expected to be approximately 100 to 800 m3/day. Fresh approximately 100 to 800 m3/day. Fresh

ffwater may be used for: water may be used for: •• potable water supply;potable water supply;

fi i dfi i d•• fire suppression; andfire suppression; and•• water quality control water quality control

Comments from the Comments from the Environmental AnalystEnvironmental Analyst

No objection to the proposed change onlyNo objection to the proposed change onlyNo objection to the proposed change only No objection to the proposed change only if De Beers maintain the total annual if De Beers maintain the total annual withdrawal of freshwater below 188 000withdrawal of freshwater below 188 000withdrawal of freshwater below 188,000 withdrawal of freshwater below 188,000 mm33 (515 m(515 m33 per day in average)per day in average)

Even if 800 mEven if 800 m33 per day of freshwater isper day of freshwater is Even if 800 mEven if 800 m33 per day of freshwater is per day of freshwater is used to dilute WTP effluent, it may not used to dilute WTP effluent, it may not make big differencemake big differencemake big differencemake big difference 800 vs. 39,000 to 48000800 vs. 39,000 to 48000

11 2% f di h2% f di h 1.71.7--2% of discharge amount2% of discharge amount

1.6 De Beers Reponses to 1.6 De Beers Reponses to Comments on EAAR 2013Comments on EAAR 2013

Dated December 10 2014Dated December 10 2014Dated December 10, 2014Dated December 10, 2014 “With respect to SLEMA’s comments, De “With respect to SLEMA’s comments, De

Beers has updated Sections 5 (Summary ofBeers has updated Sections 5 (Summary ofBeers has updated Sections 5 (Summary of Beers has updated Sections 5 (Summary of Compliance), 7 (Summary of Compliance), 7 (Summary of MitigativeMitigativeMeasures) and 9 (Summary of Public Measures) and 9 (Summary of Public ) ( y) ( yConcern) to reflect the Concern) to reflect the exceedanceexceedance of of chlorides chlorides licencelicence criteria.”criteria.”

Provided responses to EC’s commentsProvided responses to EC’s comments

1.7 De Beers’ Responses to 1.7 De Beers’ Responses to SLEMA Modeling UpdateSLEMA Modeling Update

Dated December 15 2014Dated December 15 2014 Dated December 15, 2014Dated December 15, 2014 “De Beers acknowledges SLEMA’s request, and will “De Beers acknowledges SLEMA’s request, and will

attempt to conduct an sampling program in early attempt to conduct an sampling program in early January to attempt to obtain relevant TDS data within January to attempt to obtain relevant TDS data within Snap LakeSnap Lake, as it may address your request to obtain , as it may address your request to obtain data for this time period. De Beers stresses that thisdata for this time period. De Beers stresses that thisdata for this time period. De Beers stresses that this data for this time period. De Beers stresses that this program will only be undertaken in whole or in part, if program will only be undertaken in whole or in part, if ice, daylight and weather conditions are deemed safe ice, daylight and weather conditions are deemed safe for Snap Lake Mine workers in accordance with Defor Snap Lake Mine workers in accordance with Defor Snap Lake Mine workers, in accordance with De for Snap Lake Mine workers, in accordance with De Beers’ health and safety policies, the NWT Mines Beers’ health and safety policies, the NWT Mines Health and Safety Act, and the Workers’ Safety and Health and Safety Act, and the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission Code of Practice for Compensation Commission Code of Practice for Thermal Conditions”Thermal Conditions”

1.8 Notification of Camp 1.8 Notification of Camp ExpansionExpansion

Dated December 16 2014Dated December 16 2014Dated December 16, 2014Dated December 16, 2014 To the InspectorTo the Inspector

De Beers will be initiating expansion ofDe Beers will be initiating expansion of De Beers will be initiating expansion of De Beers will be initiating expansion of accommodations at the Mine in the first week accommodations at the Mine in the first week of January 2015 with the possibility of startingof January 2015 with the possibility of startingof January 2015 with the possibility of starting of January 2015 with the possibility of starting sooner if time allows, while the anticipated sooner if time allows, while the anticipated commissioning of the new wing is scheduled commissioning of the new wing is scheduled for February 15for February 15

1.9 Update to the Water 1.9 Update to the Water Management PlanManagement Plan

Dated December 19 2014Dated December 19 2014Dated December 19, 2014Dated December 19, 2014 Additional information provided to support the Additional information provided to support the

proposed change in the Water Managementproposed change in the Water Managementproposed change in the Water Management proposed change in the Water Management Plan per letter of December 8, 2014 Plan per letter of December 8, 2014

•• De Beers proposed to use variable range of 100De Beers proposed to use variable range of 100--p p gp p g800 m3/day of raw water from Snap Lake for a 800 m3/day of raw water from Snap Lake for a total amount not to exceed 188,000 m3/annumtotal amount not to exceed 188,000 m3/annum

1.10 Notification of Winter Road 1.10 Notification of Winter Road Construction Construction

Dated December 29 2014Dated December 29 2014Dated December 29, 2014Dated December 29, 2014 Winter Road Construction is to Winter Road Construction is to commence commence

January 2 2015January 2 2015January 2, 2015January 2, 2015

1.11 1.11 ExceedanceExceedance of AEMP Low of AEMP Low Action Levels for ToxicityAction Levels for Toxicity

Notice dated December 30 3014Notice dated December 30 3014 Notice dated December 30, 3014Notice dated December 30, 3014 Persistent subPersistent sub--lethal toxic effects to lethal toxic effects to CeridaphniaCeridaphnia

reproduction in mixing zone samples (SNP 02reproduction in mixing zone samples (SNP 02--20) 20) occurred in 2014occurred in 2014

However, there was no similar degree of toxicity in However, there was no similar degree of toxicity in the effluent toxicity tests (SNP 02the effluent toxicity tests (SNP 02--17B) which17B) whichthe effluent toxicity tests (SNP 02the effluent toxicity tests (SNP 02--17B), which 17B), which suggests the effluent alone is not responsible for the suggests the effluent alone is not responsible for the observed toxicity in Snap Lake observed toxicity in Snap Lake

De Beers planned to assess the toxicity data to De Beers planned to assess the toxicity data to determine what further actions should be undertaken determine what further actions should be undertaken to understand these counterintuitive results (toxicity into understand these counterintuitive results (toxicity into understand these counterintuitive results (toxicity in to understand these counterintuitive results (toxicity in Snap Lake but not in the effluent) Snap Lake but not in the effluent)

1 12 Emergency Response Plan1 12 Emergency Response Plan1.12 Emergency Response Plan1.12 Emergency Response Plan

Submitted on December 30 2014 for theSubmitted on December 30 2014 for the Submitted on December 30, 2014 for the Submitted on December 30, 2014 for the emergency responses of emergency responses of

FIREFIRE FIREFIRE SURFACE EMERGENCIESSURFACE EMERGENCIES

UNDERGOUND EMERGENCIESUNDERGOUND EMERGENCIES UNDERGOUND EMERGENCIESUNDERGOUND EMERGENCIES MEDICAL EMERGENCIESMEDICAL EMERGENCIES

ACCIDENTAL RELEASESACCIDENTAL RELEASES SPILLSSPILLS ACCIDENTAL RELEASES ACCIDENTAL RELEASES –– SPILLSSPILLS NATURAL DISASTERSNATURAL DISASTERS LOSS OF LIFELOSS OF LIFE

1.13 Notification of Ice Road for 1.13 Notification of Ice Road for Safety ExerciseSafety Exercise

Dated December 31 2014Dated December 31 2014Dated December 31, 2014Dated December 31, 2014 De Beers planned to construct an ice road to De Beers planned to construct an ice road to

the diffuser for an ice rescue exercise in latethe diffuser for an ice rescue exercise in latethe diffuser for an ice rescue exercise in late the diffuser for an ice rescue exercise in late January or early February 2015January or early February 2015

2 Inspection Update2 Inspection Update2. Inspection Update 2. Inspection Update

AANDC Inspector AANDC Inspector –– Jamie SteeleJamie SteeleppNo inspection reports received in No inspection reports received in

December 2014December 2014December 2014December 2014

3 Regulators’ Update3 Regulators’ Update –– MVLWB (I)MVLWB (I)3. Regulators Update 3. Regulators Update MVLWB (I) MVLWB (I) Invited reviewers to submit comments on Invited reviewers to submit comments on

AEMP C i d Th lli RAEMP C i d Th lli RAEMP Cesium and Thallium Response AEMP Cesium and Thallium Response Plan on December 3, 2014Plan on December 3, 2014 Due on March 5Due on March 5

Requested De Beers to update the Water Requested De Beers to update the Water Management Plan (WMP) regarding the Management Plan (WMP) regarding the request to change water intake uses on request to change water intake uses on December 12December 12 Due on December 22Due on December 22 De Beers responded to MVLWB questions De Beers responded to MVLWB questions

and updated the WMP on December 19and updated the WMP on December 19

3. Regulators’ Update3. Regulators’ Update –– MVLWB (II)MVLWB (II)3. Regulators Update 3. Regulators Update MVLWB (II) MVLWB (II)

Invited reviewers to submit comments onInvited reviewers to submit comments on Invited reviewers to submit comments on Invited reviewers to submit comments on the updated Water Management Plan on the updated Water Management Plan on December 22 2014December 22 2014December 22, 2014December 22, 2014 Due on January 26, 2015Due on January 26, 2015

4 Aboriginal Update4 Aboriginal Update4. Aboriginal Update4. Aboriginal Update

No Comments received from theNo Comments received from theNo Comments received from the No Comments received from the Aboriginal Parties in December 2014 Aboriginal Parties in December 2014 except for the Waterexcept for the Water LicenceLicence AmendmentAmendmentexcept for the Water except for the Water LicenceLicence Amendment Amendment ApplicationsApplications

5 Stakeholders’ Update5 Stakeholders’ Update5. Stakeholders Update5. Stakeholders Update

No Comments received from the otherNo Comments received from the otherNo Comments received from the other No Comments received from the other stakeholders in December 2014 except for stakeholders in December 2014 except for the Waterthe Water LicenceLicence AmendmentAmendmentthe Water the Water LicenceLicence Amendment Amendment ApplicationsApplications

66 Agency’s ActivitiesAgency’s Activities6. 6. Agency s ActivitiesAgency s Activities

Open House of SLEMA IEMA and EMAB heldOpen House of SLEMA IEMA and EMAB held Open House of SLEMA, IEMA and EMAB held Open House of SLEMA, IEMA and EMAB held on December 3, 2014on December 3, 2014

SLEMA Annual General Meeting held onSLEMA Annual General Meeting held on SLEMA Annual General Meeting held on SLEMA Annual General Meeting held on December 17December 17

SLEMA Core Group Meeting held on December SLEMA Core Group Meeting held on December p gp g1717

SLEMA Traditional Knowledge Panel Meeting SLEMA Traditional Knowledge Panel Meeting g gg gheld on December 18held on December 18

SLEMA letter for information requests on SLEMA letter for information requests on December 2013 Amendment Application sent December 2013 Amendment Application sent out on December 19out on December 19

TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (I)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (I)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (I)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (I)

TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (II)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (II)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (II)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (II)

TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (III)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (III)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (III)TK Workshop on December 18, 2014 (III)

7 SLEMA Reviews7 SLEMA Reviews7. SLEMA Reviews7. SLEMA Reviews

Water Licence Amendment Applications Water Licence Amendment Applications Originally submitted in December 2013 Post-EA package submitted on November 28, 2014 p g ,

Application for Interim Water Licence Limits to TDS in Effluent Submitted on November 12, 2014

Request to change effective dates for effluent limits Submitted on November 20, 2014

Submission of Application

Dec 2013Nov. 2014

Nov. 2014 Compliance DatesChange (Nov. 2014)

Problem / Non-compliant water Risk of non- Risk of non-Background quality in Snap Lake

and non-compliant Chloride effluent discharge in the

compliant Chloride effluent dischargeand non-compliant water quality (TDS)

compliant Chlorideeffluent dischargestarting in January 2015discharge in the

future water quality (TDS) in Snap Lake starting in January 2015

2015

Timing Dec. 20, 2013

Nov. 28, 2014

November 12, 2014 November 20, 2014

Request SSWQO, 684 - - -> 1000 684 (remove whole TDS, mg/L

lake average limit –350 mg/L)

EQC, TDS

684 - - -> 960 850 (inclusive of Chl id )TDS,

mg/LChloride)

Period Life of mine January 1 toDecember 31 2015

Current EQCs extended to JuneDecember 31, 2015

or until the EQCs of the life of mine are approved

extended to June 2020

7.1 De Beers Request to 7.1 De Beers Request to Change Compliance DatesChange Compliance Dates

De Beers requested to change effective datesDe Beers requested to change effective dates De Beers requested to change effective dates De Beers requested to change effective dates for effluent limits (Part F; Condition 9a) on for effluent limits (Part F; Condition 9a) on November 20, 2014November 20, 2014 To remove the effective date of January 1, 2015 for To remove the effective date of January 1, 2015 for

EQCs of nitrate, chloride and fluorideEQCs of nitrate, chloride and fluorideT t d th t EQC f it t dT t d th t EQC f it t d hl idhl id To extend the current EQCs of nitrate and To extend the current EQCs of nitrate and chloridechlorideuntil the expiry date of the water until the expiry date of the water licencelicence, namely June , namely June 13, 202013, 2020,,

The request is intended as a means of reducing The request is intended as a means of reducing (but not eliminating) the potential for non(but not eliminating) the potential for non--compliance as of January 1, 2015compliance as of January 1, 2015

700

Chloride Data Analysis

600

Grab SampleRolling AverageEQC - GrabEQC A erage

400

500

atio

n, m

g/L EQC - Average

300

400

e C

Onc

entr

a

200

Chl

orid

e

0

100

18-Oct-12 26-Jan-13 6-May-13 14-Aug-1322-Nov-13 2-Mar-14 10-Jun-14 18-Sep-1427-Dec-14 6-Apr-15 15-Jul-15 23-Oct-15

Date

Comments from the Comments from the Environmental Analyst (I)Environmental Analyst (I)

This is almost a “last minute” requestThis is almost a “last minute” request This is almost a last minute requestThis is almost a last minute request The request should have been submitted The request should have been submitted

months ago for De Beers to avoid imminentmonths ago for De Beers to avoid imminentmonths ago for De Beers to avoid imminent months ago for De Beers to avoid imminent threat of nonthreat of non--compliance beginning in compliance beginning in January 2015January 2015yy

The MVLWB and SLEMA reminded De Beers The MVLWB and SLEMA reminded De Beers a few times, in different occasions (a few times, in different occasions (at least in at least in July and August 2014July and August 2014))

Only 6 weeks left for review and approval Only 6 weeks left for review and approval

Comments from the Comments from the Environmental Analyst (II)Environmental Analyst (II)

Current WaterCurrent Water LicenceLicence limits for Chloride Nitratelimits for Chloride Nitrate Current Water Current Water LicenceLicence limits for Chloride, Nitrate limits for Chloride, Nitrate and Fluoride could be extendedand Fluoride could be extended Toxicity testing so far has shown very minor impacts Toxicity testing so far has shown very minor impacts y g y py g y p

on aquatic life from the mine effluent, as expected on aquatic life from the mine effluent, as expected during the original EAduring the original EA

Th t i t J 13 2020 i tTh t i t J 13 2020 i t The extension to June 13, 2020 is not The extension to June 13, 2020 is not appropriate appropriate

It is acceptable to extend one year or till the EQCs forIt is acceptable to extend one year or till the EQCs for It is acceptable to extend one year or till the EQCs for It is acceptable to extend one year or till the EQCs for the life of mine are approved by the MVLWBthe life of mine are approved by the MVLWB

7.2 November 2014 Water 7.2 November 2014 Water LicenceLicence Amendment Application Amendment Application Submitted on November 12 2014Submitted on November 12 2014 Submitted on November 12, 2014Submitted on November 12, 2014

Further information provided on November 14Further information provided on November 14 The application proposesThe application proposes two limited duration,two limited duration, The application proposes The application proposes two limited duration, two limited duration,

interim amendmentsinterim amendments:: Part F Condition 9a: Remove the chloride effluent Part F Condition 9a: Remove the chloride effluent

limit that comes into effect January 1, 2015 (160 limit that comes into effect January 1, 2015 (160 mg/L) and mg/L) and effectuate a limit for TDS in effluent of 850 effectuate a limit for TDS in effluent of 850 mg/Lmg/L inclusive of chlorideinclusive of chloride until December 31 2015until December 31 2015mg/L,mg/L, inclusive of chlorideinclusive of chloride, until December 31, 2015, until December 31, 2015

Part F, Condition 13: Part F, Condition 13: RemoveRemove requirement to requirement to maintain wholemaintain whole--lake average TDS concentration lake average TDS concentration below below 350 mg/L350 mg/L at all timesat all times

Comments from the Comments from the Environmental AnalystEnvironmental Analyst

Generally the November 2014 AmendmentGenerally the November 2014 Amendment Generally the November 2014 Amendment Generally the November 2014 Amendment Application will trigger a public hearing, and the Application will trigger a public hearing, and the MVLWB can not make a decision favorable for MVLWB can not make a decision favorable for De Beers by the end of December 2014De Beers by the end of December 2014 350 mg/L will be maintained as the limit for the whole 350 mg/L will be maintained as the limit for the whole

l k TDS til l t d d tl k TDS til l t d d tlake average TDS until related amendments are lake average TDS until related amendments are approvedapproved

De Beers may have compliance problems ofDe Beers may have compliance problems of De Beers may have compliance problems of De Beers may have compliance problems of whole lake average TDS, starting from January whole lake average TDS, starting from January 2015 2015

TDS Concentrations at SNP 02-17BInterim TDS EQCInterim TDS EQC

900

1000Proposed AML in April and November 2014, 850 mg/L

700

800

mg/

L

500

600

cent

ratio

n,

Proposed AML in December 2013, 684 mg/L

300

400

TDS

Con

c

Grab Sample, mg/L

Rolling Monthly Average mg/L

100

200Rolling Monthly Average, mg/L

026-Jan-13 17-Mar-13 6-May-13 25-Jun-13 14-Aug-13 3-Oct-13 22-Nov-13

Date

SLEMA Comments Revisited (I)SLEMA Comments Revisited (I)SLEMA Comments Revisited (I)SLEMA Comments Revisited (I)

Dated January 16 2014Dated January 16 2014Dated January 16, 2014Dated January 16, 2014 “it is very possible that there will be “it is very possible that there will be

exceedancesexceedances of the proposed AML until theof the proposed AML until theexceedancesexceedances of the proposed AML until the of the proposed AML until the TDS removal facility is in place and is TDS removal facility is in place and is functioning properly.”functioning properly.”g p p yg p p y

“It is recommended that De Beers resubmit an “It is recommended that De Beers resubmit an appropriate AML with a feasible timeline.”appropriate AML with a feasible timeline.”

De Beers responded during the De Beers responded during the Information Request Period of the EA Information Request Period of the EA o at o equest e od o t eo at o equest e od o t e13141314--02 (April 2014)02 (April 2014)

De Beers’ Compliance Problems in 2015De Beers’ Compliance Problems in 2015

1200

Water Quality Prediction of Snap Lake

1000

mg/

L

Observed ValueSLEMA ModelWTP Effluent

Water Quality Objective 350

600

800

cent

ratio

n, Water Quality Objective, 350

400

TDS

Con

c

Correlation co-efficient:

0

200 Assumed discharge amount and concentration: 1.4 M m3/month, 650 mg/L

0.990

Jun-

04

Jun-

05

Jun-

06

Jun-

07

Jun-

08

Jun-

09

Jun-

10

Jun-

11

Jun-

12

Jun-

13

Jun-

14

Jun-

15

Jun-

16

Jun-

17

Jun-

18

Jun-

19

Jun-

20

Jun-

21

Jun-

22

Jun-

23

Jun-

24

Jun-

25

Jun-

26

Jun-

27

Jun-

28

Month

400

TDS Levels in Snap Lake

350

250

300

on, m

g/L

200

once

ntra

tio SNP 02-20

SNP 02-18

100

150Co

0

50

0Sep-02 Jan-04 May-05 Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12 Aug-13 Dec-14 May-16

Month

SLEMA Comments Revisited (II)SLEMA Comments Revisited (II)SLEMA Comments Revisited (II)SLEMA Comments Revisited (II) Dated October 31, 2013 and November 27, Dated October 31, 2013 and November 27,

2014201420142014 “If the discharge amount and TDS concentration are “If the discharge amount and TDS concentration are

1,400,000 m3 /month and 650 mg/L, the whole lake 1,400,000 m3 /month and 650 mg/L, the whole lake , , g ,, , g ,average TDS level will be 376.8 mg/L in January average TDS level will be 376.8 mg/L in January 2015, which will exceed the Water 2015, which will exceed the Water LicenceLicence limit (350 limit (350 mg/L) The prediction is consistent with the onemg/L) The prediction is consistent with the onemg/L). The prediction is consistent with the one mg/L). The prediction is consistent with the one conducted in October 2013 (376.8 mg/L vs. 378.8 conducted in October 2013 (376.8 mg/L vs. 378.8 mg/L).mg/L).

Based the TDS prediction and the TDS Based the TDS prediction and the TDS exceedanceexceedancein late winter of 2014, SLEMA believes that the whole in late winter of 2014, SLEMA believes that the whole lake average of TDS will exceed the waterlake average of TDS will exceed the water licencelicencelake average of TDS will exceed the water lake average of TDS will exceed the water licencelicencelimit (350 mg/L) again in 2015 and in the icelimit (350 mg/L) again in 2015 and in the ice--cover cover season of the following years.”season of the following years.”

7.3 December 2013 Water 7.3 December 2013 Water LicenceLicence Amendment ApplicationAmendment ApplicationLicenceLicence Amendment ApplicationAmendment Application PostPost--EA Information Package updates the EA Information Package updates the

information related to the proposed amendmentsinformation related to the proposed amendmentsinformation related to the proposed amendmentsinformation related to the proposed amendments updated proposed SSWQO for TDS, nitrate, nitrite, updated proposed SSWQO for TDS, nitrate, nitrite,

fluoride, chloride and fluoride, chloride and sulphatesulphate;;,, pp ;; updated proposed effluent limits (EQC) for TDS, updated proposed effluent limits (EQC) for TDS,

nitrate, nitrite, fluoride, chloride and nitrate, nitrite, fluoride, chloride and sulphatesulphate; and; and removal of request to amend certain conditions of the removal of request to amend certain conditions of the

licencelicence.. Supporting material includesSupporting material includes Supporting material includesSupporting material includes

updated Effluent Quality Criteria (EQC) report;updated Effluent Quality Criteria (EQC) report; additional toxicity studies of aquatic organisms;additional toxicity studies of aquatic organisms; additional toxicity studies of aquatic organisms;additional toxicity studies of aquatic organisms; updated model predictions of water quality of Snap updated model predictions of water quality of Snap

Lake, downstream lakes and postLake, downstream lakes and post--closureclosure

Best Available Technologies Best Available Technologies E i ll A hi blE i ll A hi bl (BATEA)(BATEA)Economically AchievableEconomically Achievable (BATEA)(BATEA) Reverse osmosis (RO)Reverse osmosis (RO)--based technology withbased technology with Reverse osmosis (RO)Reverse osmosis (RO) based technology with based technology with

secondary brine reduction is the best technical secondary brine reduction is the best technical and environmental solution for the Mine, taking and environmental solution for the Mine, taking ggall tradeall trade--offs into considerationoffs into consideration The technology does not require substantial new The technology does not require substantial new

i f t t d ti f l bilit ll fi f t t d ti f l bilit ll finfrastructure, and options for scalability allow for infrastructure, and options for scalability allow for meeting a wide range of discharge limitsmeeting a wide range of discharge limits

As tradeAs trade--offs however, this technology requiresoffs however, this technology requires As tradeAs trade offs however, this technology requires offs however, this technology requires substantial energy inputs, and consideration of waste substantial energy inputs, and consideration of waste handling and disposal outside of the Northwest handling and disposal outside of the Northwest TerritoriesTerritoriesTerritoriesTerritories

Considerations of RO SystemConsiderations of RO SystemConsiderations of RO SystemConsiderations of RO System The energy inputs and waste outputs associated with The energy inputs and waste outputs associated with

RORO--based mitigation are highly dependent on thebased mitigation are highly dependent on theRORO based mitigation are highly dependent on the based mitigation are highly dependent on the desired discharge criteria, the amount of water that must desired discharge criteria, the amount of water that must be treated, and the recovery efficiency of the process be treated, and the recovery efficiency of the process Th id ti l t t i tiTh id ti l t t i ti These same considerations also create uncertainties as These same considerations also create uncertainties as to the prediction of capital and operating costs of the to the prediction of capital and operating costs of the technology over life of mine. technology over life of mine. gygy

High efficiency ROHigh efficiency RO--based treatment to achieve based treatment to achieve discharge criteria of discharge criteria of 960mg/L TDS in effluent960mg/L TDS in effluent is is considered to be an economically viable solution forconsidered to be an economically viable solution forconsidered to be an economically viable solution for considered to be an economically viable solution for Snap Lake Mine under current conditions of effluent flowSnap Lake Mine under current conditions of effluent flow

Minimum or No Treatment Required under Lower Minimum or No Treatment Required under Lower Bound Scenario, Based on the Report of MineBound Scenario, Based on the Report of MineBound Scenario, Based on the Report of Mine Bound Scenario, Based on the Report of Mine

Site Water Quality Site Water Quality –– 2013 Update2013 Update

Comments from the Comments from the Environmental Analyst (I)Environmental Analyst (I)

The updated SSWQO and EQCs for TDSThe updated SSWQO and EQCs for TDS The updated SSWQO and EQCs for TDS The updated SSWQO and EQCs for TDS are significantly up from the originally are significantly up from the originally proposed onesproposed onesproposed onesproposed ones

In mg/L Original Updated Change (%)SSWQO 684 1000 +46SSWQO 684 1000 +46EQC, average monthly limit

684 960 +40

monthly limitEQC, maximumgrab

1003 1253 +25

g

Comments from the Comments from the Environmental Analyst (II)Environmental Analyst (II)

It is acknowledged that further toxicityIt is acknowledged that further toxicity It is acknowledged that further toxicity It is acknowledged that further toxicity testing has been done, and more site testing has been done, and more site specific data were used for analysisspecific data were used for analysisspecific data were used for analysisspecific data were used for analysis

Approaches to developing SSWQOApproaches to developing SSWQOR id t i hR id t i h Resident species approachResident species approach

•• De Beers devaluated testing species C. De Beers devaluated testing species C. DubiaDubia(IC(IC /IC/IC : 560/778 mg/L for TDS): 560/778 mg/L for TDS)(IC(IC1010/IC/IC2020: 560/778 mg/L for TDS): 560/778 mg/L for TDS)

Human health based approachHuman health based approach•• De Beers devaluated aesthetic objective (500 mg/LDe Beers devaluated aesthetic objective (500 mg/LDe Beers devaluated aesthetic objective (500 mg/L De Beers devaluated aesthetic objective (500 mg/L

for TDS and 250 mg/L for Chloride)for TDS and 250 mg/L for Chloride)

Comments from the Comments from the Environmental Analyst (III)Environmental Analyst (III)

De Beers has been arguing that currentDe Beers has been arguing that currentDe Beers has been arguing that current De Beers has been arguing that current licencelicence limits are limits are overprotectiveoverprotective and and unachievable However the approachesunachievable However the approachesunachievable. However, the approaches unachievable. However, the approaches and associated results (updated higher and associated results (updated higher SSWQO and EQCs for TDS) as well asSSWQO and EQCs for TDS) as well asSSWQO and EQCs for TDS) as well as SSWQO and EQCs for TDS) as well as mitigation strategy show that De Beers mitigation strategy show that De Beers overprotects itselfoverprotects itselfoverprotects itself overprotects itself

Information Request (I)Information Request (I)Information Request (I)Information Request (I)

Figure 3Figure 3--1a and 31a and 3--1b present the predicted and1b present the predicted and Figure 3Figure 3 1a and 31a and 3 1b present the predicted and 1b present the predicted and monitored discharge rates and TDS monitored discharge rates and TDS concentrations (End of Pipe), but only from concentrations (End of Pipe), but only from ( p ) y( p ) yJanuary 2012 to January 2015. January 2012 to January 2015. Prediction of the Prediction of the discharge rates and TDS concentrations (End of discharge rates and TDS concentrations (End of Pi ) f th i i lif f th i iPi ) f th i i lif f th i iPipe) for the remaining life of the mine is Pipe) for the remaining life of the mine is requested.requested.

Information Request (II)Information Request (II)Information Request (II)Information Request (II) Figure 3Figure 3--2(c) presents the predicted depth2(c) presents the predicted depth--averagedaveraged Figure 3Figure 3 2(c) presents the predicted depth2(c) presents the predicted depth averaged averaged

TDS concentrations at SNAP29 (Drinking Water Intake), TDS concentrations at SNAP29 (Drinking Water Intake), with mitigation. It shows that TDS levels at SNAP29 will with mitigation. It shows that TDS levels at SNAP29 will be above 500 mg/L (be above 500 mg/L (Aesthetic ObjectiveAesthetic Objective) from 2024 to) from 2024 tobe above 500 mg/L (be above 500 mg/L (Aesthetic ObjectiveAesthetic Objective) from 2024 to ) from 2024 to 2029. 2029. Will De Beers treat the intake water to meet the Will De Beers treat the intake water to meet the Aesthetic Objective for Drinking Water?Aesthetic Objective for Drinking Water?

Information Request (III)Information Request (III)Information Request (III)Information Request (III)

It is noticed that in Table 3It is noticed that in Table 3--11 TDS levels11 TDS levels It is noticed that, in Table 3It is noticed that, in Table 3--11, TDS levels 11, TDS levels in DSL1 (upstream lake) are lower than in DSL1 (upstream lake) are lower than those in DSL2 (downstream lake) It isthose in DSL2 (downstream lake) It isthose in DSL2 (downstream lake). It is those in DSL2 (downstream lake). It is abnormal except of certain circumstances. abnormal except of certain circumstances. Explanation is requested to preventExplanation is requested to preventExplanation is requested to prevent Explanation is requested to prevent reviewers from confusionreviewers from confusion

Information Request (IV)Information Request (IV)Information Request (IV)Information Request (IV) Suggestion 2 of the Environmental Assessment EA1314Suggestion 2 of the Environmental Assessment EA1314-- Suggestion 2 of the Environmental Assessment EA1314Suggestion 2 of the Environmental Assessment EA1314

02 states02 states “The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board should set “The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board should set

closure objectives and criteria that ensure drinking water qualityclosure objectives and criteria that ensure drinking water qualityclosure objectives and criteria that ensure drinking water quality closure objectives and criteria that ensure drinking water quality in Snap Lake achieves the Health Canada Guidelines for in Snap Lake achieves the Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality aesthetic objective for TDS in Canadian Drinking Water Quality aesthetic objective for TDS in drinking water within five years of the end of mining operations.”drinking water within five years of the end of mining operations.”drinking water within five years of the end of mining operations.drinking water within five years of the end of mining operations.

De Beers predicted that Snap Lake would return to the De Beers predicted that Snap Lake would return to the TDS aesthetic level within seven years following the TDS aesthetic level within seven years following the

ti f i i E if it i “ti f i i E if it i “ i t t ith thi t t ith thcessation of mining. Even if it is “cessation of mining. Even if it is “consistent with the consistent with the intent of the suggestionintent of the suggestion”, it does not meet the MVEIRB’s ”, it does not meet the MVEIRB’s requirement. requirement. What will De Beers have to do to meet this What will De Beers have to do to meet this qqspecific closure requirement if the MVLWB does as the specific closure requirement if the MVLWB does as the MVEIRB suggested?MVEIRB suggested?

Information Information Request (VRequest (V)) Figure 3Figure 3--10 presents the post10 presents the post--closure prediction of whole lake closure prediction of whole lake

average TDS concentrations in Snap Lake. However, the data set is average TDS concentrations in Snap Lake. However, the data set is from 2012 to 2130, and no data represent prefrom 2012 to 2130, and no data represent pre--construction, construction, 0 30, p p0 30, p p ,,construction and early operation periods, as a result, the “picture” construction and early operation periods, as a result, the “picture” appears not to be complete. appears not to be complete. It is requested that De Beers add It is requested that De Beers add baseline data and other data available into the figure and provide a baseline data and other data available into the figure and provide a complete “picture” of trend for TDS concentrations in Snap Lake.complete “picture” of trend for TDS concentrations in Snap Lake.

Information Request (VI)Information Request (VI)Information Request (VI)Information Request (VI)

Measure 1 d) of the Environmental AssessmentMeasure 1 d) of the Environmental Assessment Measure 1.d) of the Environmental Assessment Measure 1.d) of the Environmental Assessment EA1314EA1314--02 states02 states “No Total Dissolved Solids or its constituent ions from “No Total Dissolved Solids or its constituent ions from

the Snap Lake mine effluent will be detectable, the Snap Lake mine effluent will be detectable, relative to the range of natural variability, at the inlet relative to the range of natural variability, at the inlet to Mackay Lake 44 km downstream of Snap Lake”to Mackay Lake 44 km downstream of Snap Lake”to Mackay Lake, 44 km downstream of Snap Laketo Mackay Lake, 44 km downstream of Snap Lake

However, Table 2 of Appendix II (page 337/619) However, Table 2 of Appendix II (page 337/619) show that predicted TDS levels (mitigated case)show that predicted TDS levels (mitigated case)show that predicted TDS levels (mitigated case) show that predicted TDS levels (mitigated case) at downstream site #22 (Mackay Lake) range at downstream site #22 (Mackay Lake) range from 45 to 50 mg/L, doubling the baseline level from 45 to 50 mg/L, doubling the baseline level (20 mg/L). De Beers appears not to meet the (20 mg/L). De Beers appears not to meet the MVEIRB’s Measure 1.d).MVEIRB’s Measure 1.d).

Natural VariabilityNatural Variability De Beers claimed that the natural variability in baseline De Beers claimed that the natural variability in baseline

TDS at each site is not known and this is based on TDS at each site is not known and this is based on individual measurements from openindividual measurements from open--water season onlywater season onlyindividual measurements from openindividual measurements from open water season onlywater season only

From the data below, TDS levels in the Lockhart River From the data below, TDS levels in the Lockhart River System are generally low. De Beers claim does not System are generally low. De Beers claim does not

dd Wh ddi i l i i iWh ddi i l i i iappear to stand. appear to stand. What additional mitigation measures What additional mitigation measures will De will De Beers take Beers take to meet Measure 1.d)?to meet Measure 1.d)?

8. Water 8. Water LicenceLicence Amendment Amendment Application (I)Application (I)

The MVLWB engage The MVLWB engage EcoMetrixEcoMetrix Incorporated for the Incorporated for the review of the interim Water Licence limits for the Snap review of the interim Water Licence limits for the Snap Lake Mine, and Lake Mine, and EcoMetrixEcoMetrix submitted the review on submitted the review on November 27, 2014November 27, 2014,, De Beers responded to De Beers responded to EcoMetrixEcoMetrix’ comments on December 5’ comments on December 5

ENR, EC, YKDFN and LKDFN commented on De Beers’ ENR, EC, YKDFN and LKDFN commented on De Beers’ t t h ff ti d t f ffl t li itt t h ff ti d t f ffl t li itrequest to change effective dates for effluent limits on request to change effective dates for effluent limits on

December 3/4December 3/4 ENR, EC, DFO, YKDFN, LKDFN and Fort ResolutionENR, EC, DFO, YKDFN, LKDFN and Fort Resolution ENR, EC, DFO, YKDFN, LKDFN and Fort Resolution ENR, EC, DFO, YKDFN, LKDFN and Fort Resolution

MetisMetis Council commented the November 2014 Council commented the November 2014 Amendment Application on December 3/4/11Amendment Application on December 3/4/11

De Beers responded to YKDFN and LKDFN on December 19De Beers responded to YKDFN and LKDFN on December 19 De Beers responded to YKDFN and LKDFN on December 19De Beers responded to YKDFN and LKDFN on December 19

8. Water 8. Water LicenceLicence Amendment Amendment Application (II)Application (II)

The MVLWB developed a work plan thatThe MVLWB developed a work plan that The MVLWB developed a work plan that The MVLWB developed a work plan that consolidates the two current Applications consolidates the two current Applications (December 2013 Application and November (December 2013 Application and November ( pp( pp2014 Application) on December 9, 2014, an d 2014 Application) on December 9, 2014, an d updated on December 11updated on December 11 To be more efficientTo be more efficient To better address reviewer concerns and ensure that To better address reviewer concerns and ensure that

all evidence required for the Board to make a decisionall evidence required for the Board to make a decisionall evidence required for the Board to make a decision all evidence required for the Board to make a decision is reviewed and considered for each of the is reviewed and considered for each of the applications applications

ENR Commented on Information Requests on ENR Commented on Information Requests on December 9 December 9

8. Water 8. Water LicenceLicence Amendment Amendment Application (III)Application (III)

De Beers Commented on the amendment De Beers Commented on the amendment application process and work plan on December application process and work plan on December 12, 201412, 2014

The MVLWB approved De Beers request with a The MVLWB approved De Beers request with a twotwo--year extensionyear extension from January 1, 2015 to from January 1, 2015 to January 1 2017January 1 2017 for effluent limits for nitratefor effluent limits for nitrateJanuary 1, 2017 January 1, 2017 for effluent limits for nitrate, for effluent limits for nitrate, chloride, and fluoridechloride, and fluoride identified in Part F, Item identified in Part F, Item 9(a) of Water9(a) of Water LicenceLicence MV2011L2MV2011L2--0004 on0004 on9(a) of Water 9(a) of Water LicenceLicence MV2011L2MV2011L2 0004, on 0004, on December 15December 15

8. Water 8. Water LicenceLicence Amendment Amendment Application (IV)Application (IV)

YKDFN, EC, GNWT, NSMA, MVLWB provided YKDFN, EC, GNWT, NSMA, MVLWB provided Information Requests (IRs)on Water Information Requests (IRs)on Water LicenceLicenceAmendment Applications on December 22, 2014Amendment Applications on December 22, 2014

The MVLWB requested De Beers to respond to The MVLWB requested De Beers to respond to the reviewers’ IRs on December 23the reviewers’ IRs on December 23

D J 6 2015D J 6 2015 Due on January 6, 2015Due on January 6, 2015 The MVLWB requested The MVLWB requested the GNWT respond to the GNWT respond to

YKDFN IR 15YKDFN IR 15 on December 23on December 23YKDFN IR 15 YKDFN IR 15 on December 23on December 23 Due on January 16, 2015Due on January 16, 2015

8.1 8.1 EcoMetrixEcoMetrix’ review of the ’ review of the ( )( )Interim Water Licence Limits (I)Interim Water Licence Limits (I)

“An interim EQC (average monthly limit“An interim EQC (average monthly limit An interim EQC (average monthly limit, An interim EQC (average monthly limit, AML) of 750 mg/L should be adequate to AML) of 750 mg/L should be adequate to accommodate mine performanceaccommodate mine performanceaccommodate mine performance accommodate mine performance consistent with the lower bound scenario. consistent with the lower bound scenario. This limit should be achievable ”This limit should be achievable ”This limit should be achievable.This limit should be achievable.

““Setting the AML at 750 mg/L instead of Setting the AML at 750 mg/L instead of 850 mg/L may allow WQO (684 mg/L)850 mg/L may allow WQO (684 mg/L)850 mg/L may allow WQO (684 mg/L) 850 mg/L may allow WQO (684 mg/L) exceedanceexceedance in the mixing zone to be in the mixing zone to be avoided in and after 2017avoided in and after 2017 ””avoided in and after 2017avoided in and after 2017.”.”

8.1 8.1 EcoMetrixEcoMetrix’ review of the ’ review of the Interim Water Licence Limits (II)Interim Water Licence Limits (II) “There will always be uncertainty about untested“There will always be uncertainty about untested There will always be uncertainty about untested There will always be uncertainty about untested

species, in Snap Lake as at most sites. In consideration species, in Snap Lake as at most sites. In consideration of this uncertainty, it is reasonable to target the IC20 for of this uncertainty, it is reasonable to target the IC20 for the most sensitive species and endpoint tested from athe most sensitive species and endpoint tested from athe most sensitive species and endpoint tested, from a the most sensitive species and endpoint tested, from a representative set of species tested, as a SSWQO for representative set of species tested, as a SSWQO for TDS in Snap Lake. The lowest test IC20 found was 684 TDS in Snap Lake. The lowest test IC20 found was 684 mg/L, for D. magna. Although the average for D. magna, mg/L, for D. magna. Although the average for D. magna, and the value of 778 mg/L for C. and the value of 778 mg/L for C. dubiadubia, are higher, , are higher, using using 684 mg/L as originally proposed would allow for684 mg/L as originally proposed would allow for684 mg/L as originally proposed would allow for 684 mg/L as originally proposed would allow for uncertainty”uncertainty”

“We would suggest “We would suggest retaining the SSWQO for chlorideretaining the SSWQO for chloride, , d ti i t it f t f id ti i t it f t f iand continuing to monitor surface water for comparison and continuing to monitor surface water for comparison

to this objective”to this objective”

8 1 1 De Beers’ Responses (I)8 1 1 De Beers’ Responses (I)8.1.1 De Beers Responses (I)8.1.1 De Beers Responses (I) “It is possible that“It is possible that thethe EcometrixEcometrix proposedproposed iEQCiEQC of 750mg/Lof 750mg/L It is possible that It is possible that the the EcometrixEcometrix proposed proposed iEQCiEQC of 750mg/L of 750mg/L

may be exceeded for TDSmay be exceeded for TDS during this limited duration during this limited duration licencelicenceperiod. A higher period. A higher iEQCiEQC allows for deviation from the Lower allows for deviation from the Lower Bound Model while maintaining the necessary protectionBound Model while maintaining the necessary protectionBound Model while maintaining the necessary protection Bound Model while maintaining the necessary protection within Snap Lake”within Snap Lake”

“De Beers has confidence in the new updated bounded “De Beers has confidence in the new updated bounded ppscenarios and as they are recalibrated annually this improves scenarios and as they are recalibrated annually this improves planning for Snap Lake Mine operations. planning for Snap Lake Mine operations. The Lower Bound is The Lower Bound is appropriate as a best case scenarioappropriate as a best case scenario and as indicated byand as indicated byappropriate as a best case scenarioappropriate as a best case scenario, and as indicated by , and as indicated by EcometrixEcometrix, site monitoring data appears to be tracking close to , site monitoring data appears to be tracking close to the Lower Bound Scenario”the Lower Bound Scenario” Lower Bound Lower Bound –– low flow/low TDS (57,014 m3/day, 940 mg/L TDS)low flow/low TDS (57,014 m3/day, 940 mg/L TDS) Upper Bound Upper Bound –– high flow/high TDS (94,406 m3/day, 1440 mg/L TDS)high flow/high TDS (94,406 m3/day, 1440 mg/L TDS)

8 1 1 De Beers’ Responses (II)8 1 1 De Beers’ Responses (II)8.1.1 De Beers Responses (II)8.1.1 De Beers Responses (II) “De Beers commits to continue to monitor chloride in the“De Beers commits to continue to monitor chloride in the De Beers commits to continue to monitor chloride in the De Beers commits to continue to monitor chloride in the

environment, however the SSWQO for TDS inclusive of environment, however the SSWQO for TDS inclusive of chloride should be used as all toxicity testing has been chloride should be used as all toxicity testing has been conducted in water chemistry unique to the compositionconducted in water chemistry unique to the compositionconducted in water chemistry unique to the composition conducted in water chemistry unique to the composition in Snap Lake”in Snap Lake”

“De Beers emphasizes that for this interim application, “De Beers emphasizes that for this interim application, p pp ,p pp ,the proposed calculated TDS the proposed calculated TDS iEQCiEQC (850 mg/L inclusive (850 mg/L inclusive of chloride) and the of chloride) and the iSSWQOiSSWQO (684 mg/L) is overly (684 mg/L) is overly conservative and is shown to be protective of the aquaticconservative and is shown to be protective of the aquaticconservative and is shown to be protective of the aquatic conservative and is shown to be protective of the aquatic environment. De Beers studies indicate that a higher environment. De Beers studies indicate that a higher SSWQO (1000 mg/L) is protective and will satisfy the SSWQO (1000 mg/L) is protective and will satisfy the

f EA1314f EA1314 02”02”measures of EA1314measures of EA1314--02”02”

8.2.1 8.2.1 ENR Comments on De Beers’ ENR Comments on De Beers’ Request to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates for Request to Change Effective Dates for

Effluent Limits (I) Effluent Limits (I) Dated December 3, 2014Dated December 3, 2014 Dated December 3, 2014Dated December 3, 2014 “ENR is supportive of changing the compliance dates for “ENR is supportive of changing the compliance dates for

chloride and nitratechloride and nitrate, while an assessment of proposed , while an assessment of proposed ffl t lit it i d itffl t lit it i d it ifi t litifi t liteffluent quality criteria and siteeffluent quality criteria and site--specific water quality specific water quality

objectives for these parameters is conducted through the objectives for these parameters is conducted through the ongoing amendment process. However, aongoing amendment process. However, as the s the g g p ,g g p ,amendment process is anticipated to be completed amendment process is anticipated to be completed within 2015, within 2015, and as legislated timeframes now exist with and as legislated timeframes now exist with respect to Type “A” Water Licence amendmentrespect to Type “A” Water Licence amendmentrespect to Type A Water Licence amendment respect to Type A Water Licence amendment processes, processes, ENR ENR does not feel it necessary to does not feel it necessary to extend the extend the compliance dates to the current expiry date of the Water compliance dates to the current expiry date of the Water LiLi A t i f t ld idA t i f t ld idLicenceLicence. An extension of two years would provide more . An extension of two years would provide more than sufficient time for this amendment process to be than sufficient time for this amendment process to be conductedconducted.”.”

8.2.1 8.2.1 ENR Comments on De Beers’ ENR Comments on De Beers’ Request to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates for Request to Change Effective Dates for

Effluent Limits (II) Effluent Limits (II) “De Beers“De Beers has requestedhas requested removalremoval ofof the effluent qualitythe effluent quality De Beers De Beers has requested has requested removal removal of of the effluent quality the effluent quality

requirement for requirement for fluoridefluoride. . TThe removal of anyhe removal of any term andterm andcondition condition from the water licence from the water licence is beyond the scope of a is beyond the scope of a compliance date changecompliance date change and necessitates anand necessitates ancompliance date changecompliance date change and necessitates an and necessitates an amendment process. Aamendment process. An extension of the compliance n extension of the compliance date date for fluoride, for fluoride, to align with that of chloride and nitrate to align with that of chloride and nitrate (see comment #1), is likely more (see comment #1), is likely more appropriateappropriate. This would . This would provide provide appropriate time for the completion of the appropriate time for the completion of the ongoing Waterongoing Water LicenceLicence amendment processamendment process, as well as, as well asongoing Water ongoing Water LicenceLicence amendment processamendment process, as well as , as well as fall within the purview of the request to change fall within the purview of the request to change compliance dates.compliance dates.””

8.2.2 EC Comments on De Beers’ 8.2.2 EC Comments on De Beers’ Request to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates for Request to Change Effective Dates for

Effluent LimitsEffluent LimitsDated December 4 2014Dated December 4 2014Dated December 4, 2014Dated December 4, 2014

“EC supports the comments and “EC supports the comments and recommendations provided by therecommendations provided by therecommendations provided by the recommendations provided by the Department of Environment and Natural Department of Environment and Natural Resources of the Government of the Resources of the Government of the Northwest Territories in their letter submitted Northwest Territories in their letter submitted on December 3, 2014 to the MVLWB” on December 3, 2014 to the MVLWB”

8.2.3 YKDFN Comments on De Beers’ Request 8.2.3 YKDFN Comments on De Beers’ Request to Change Effective Dates for Effluent Limits (I)to Change Effective Dates for Effluent Limits (I)g ( )g ( )Dated December 4, 2014Dated December 4, 2014

Asked the Board to reject it as currentlyAsked the Board to reject it as currently Asked the Board to reject it as currently Asked the Board to reject it as currently proposedproposed

•• “There is no sound justification to provide De “There is no sound justification to provide De j pj pBeers with a life of permit extension for these Beers with a life of permit extension for these parameters. If the intent of this amendment is to parameters. If the intent of this amendment is to allow the project to remain in compliance over theallow the project to remain in compliance over theallow the project to remain in compliance over the allow the project to remain in compliance over the short term, there is no need to delay the effective short term, there is no need to delay the effective dates until 2020.”dates until 2020.”

•• “YKDFN is of the view that this amendment should “YKDFN is of the view that this amendment should be synchronized with the other permit be synchronized with the other permit amendments currently before the MVLWB,amendments currently before the MVLWB,amendments currently before the MVLWB, amendments currently before the MVLWB, streamlining the approach in stead of expanding streamlining the approach in stead of expanding the number of review.”the number of review.”

8.2.3 YKDFN Comments on De Beers’ 8.2.3 YKDFN Comments on De Beers’ Request to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates for Request to Change Effective Dates for

Effluent Limits (II)Effluent Limits (II)•• “If the Board does grant an extension to the“If the Board does grant an extension to theIf the Board does grant an extension to the If the Board does grant an extension to the

effective implementation date for these effective implementation date for these parameters, YKDFN would support a delay to the parameters, YKDFN would support a delay to the effective license date of 6 months ”effective license date of 6 months ”effective license date of 6 months.effective license date of 6 months.

•• “In the event that the deadline of the 1“In the event that the deadline of the 1stst

amendment application not be completed by July amendment application not be completed by July pp p y ypp p y y11stst, 2015, YKDFN would not object to , 2015, YKDFN would not object to complementary adjustments to the effective date of complementary adjustments to the effective date of amendment #3 MV2011L2amendment #3 MV2011L2--0004 to allow that0004 to allow thatamendment #3, MV2011L2amendment #3, MV2011L2--0004 to allow that 0004 to allow that process to be completed.”process to be completed.”

8.2.4 LKDFN Comments on De Beers’ 8.2.4 LKDFN Comments on De Beers’ Request to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates for Request to Change Effective Dates for

Effluent LimitsEffluent LimitsDated December 4 2014Dated December 4 2014Dated December 4, 2014Dated December 4, 2014

“On “On AkaitchoAkaitcho territory, the land and water take territory, the land and water take precedence over a mining operation and ifprecedence over a mining operation and ifprecedence over a mining operation and if precedence over a mining operation and if there has to be a halt in production until the there has to be a halt in production until the company can get a handle on their effluent company can get a handle on their effluent p y gp y gdischarge then that’s what it has to take.”discharge then that’s what it has to take.”

“We are not interested in increasing discharge “We are not interested in increasing discharge limits today so the mine can operate, and limits today so the mine can operate, and have major environmental and health have major environmental and health

t h th l d i h l dt h th l d i h l dconcerns tomorrow, when the land is healed concerns tomorrow, when the land is healed from this disturbance.”from this disturbance.”

8.2.4 LKDFN Comments on De Beers’ 8.2.4 LKDFN Comments on De Beers’ Request to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates forRequest to Change Effective Dates for Request to Change Effective Dates for

Effluent LimitsEffluent Limits “LKDFN is worried that if these extensions are“LKDFN is worried that if these extensions are LKDFN is worried that if these extensions are LKDFN is worried that if these extensions are

granted that there will be little incentive for De granted that there will be little incentive for De Beers to invoke the necessary treatment Beers to invoke the necessary treatment yyoptions in a timely manner.”options in a timely manner.”

“Our priority with this review is the same as “Our priority with this review is the same as the previous amendment, that the 3 requests the previous amendment, that the 3 requests before the Board can be streamlined into one before the Board can be streamlined into one

i f th k f i t l it di f th k f i t l it dreview for the sake of consistency, clarity, and review for the sake of consistency, clarity, and appropriate use of resources.”appropriate use of resources.”

8.3.1 ENR Comments on the November 8.3.1 ENR Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (I)2014 A d t A li ti (I)2014 Amendment Application (I)2014 Amendment Application (I)

Dated December 3, 2014Dated December 3, 2014 ““ENR recommends that the Board evaluate and make a decisionENR recommends that the Board evaluate and make a decision ENR recommends that the Board evaluate and make a decision ENR recommends that the Board evaluate and make a decision

with respect to the need for two parallel processes, considering the with respect to the need for two parallel processes, considering the overlapping nature of the two requests and the estimated timing for overlapping nature of the two requests and the estimated timing for completion (estimated completion by May 2015 in both instances)completion (estimated completion by May 2015 in both instances)completion (estimated completion by May 2015 in both instances)completion (estimated completion by May 2015 in both instances). .

Irrespective of the Board’s decision on process moving forward, it is Irrespective of the Board’s decision on process moving forward, it is clear that both amendment requests must respect the measures clear that both amendment requests must respect the measures contained within thecontained within the recently released Report of EArecently released Report of EA on TDS levels inon TDS levels incontained within the contained within the recently released Report of EArecently released Report of EA on TDS levels in on TDS levels in Snap LakeSnap Lake. Of note, the Report of EA includes measures directing . Of note, the Report of EA includes measures directing the Board to set numerical Site Specific Water Quality Objectives for the Board to set numerical Site Specific Water Quality Objectives for Total Dissolved Solids to meet various objectives related to Total Dissolved Solids to meet various objectives related to jjprotection of the aquatic ecosystem, human health, and range of protection of the aquatic ecosystem, human health, and range of detectabilitydetectability.”.”

8.3.1 ENR Comments on the November 8.3.1 ENR Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (II)2014 A d t A li ti (II)2014 Amendment Application (II)2014 Amendment Application (II)

“To this end,“To this end, the additional information recently providedthe additional information recently provided To this end, To this end, the additional information recently provided the additional information recently provided as part of the Postas part of the Post--EA submission EA submission is pertinent to both is pertinent to both amendment requests and should be included and amendment requests and should be included and considered by the Board This would be the case forconsidered by the Board This would be the case forconsidered by the Board. This would be the case for considered by the Board. This would be the case for both processes moving forward, if the Board decides to both processes moving forward, if the Board decides to keep these two EQC amendment processes separate.”keep these two EQC amendment processes separate.”

“ENR recommends that “ENR recommends that an additional preliminary an additional preliminary screening is not requiredscreening is not required, as long as the amendment , as long as the amendment application process remain consistent with andapplication process remain consistent with andapplication process remain consistent with, and application process remain consistent with, and incorporate the measures outlined in, the Report of EA.”incorporate the measures outlined in, the Report of EA.”

8.3.2 EC Comments on the November 8.3.2 EC Comments on the November 2014 Amendment Application2014 Amendment Application2014 Amendment Application2014 Amendment Application

Dated December 3, 2014Dated December 3, 2014 “Given the timeline provided and the other“Given the timeline provided and the other Given the timeline provided and the other Given the timeline provided and the other

application before the MVLWB for this project application before the MVLWB for this project EC is seeking further clarification from MVLWB EC is seeking further clarification from MVLWB ggas to the need for two amendment processes, as to the need for two amendment processes, EC is unclear as to the benefits gained by EC is unclear as to the benefits gained by f ll i t t d t li tif ll i t t d t li ti

8.3.3 DFO Comments the November 2014 Amendment Application

following two separate amendment applications following two separate amendment applications with the intent to change the Total Dissolved with the intent to change the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) limits twice over a very shortSolids (TDS) limits twice over a very shortSolids (TDS) limits twice over a very short Solids (TDS) limits twice over a very short period. EC is concerned with duplicated efforts, period. EC is concerned with duplicated efforts, including potentially needing two public including potentially needing two public g p y g pg p y g phearings. Is the MVLWB considering one hearings. Is the MVLWB considering one expedited amendment process?”expedited amendment process?”

8.3.3 DFO Comments on the November 8.3.3 DFO Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti2014 A d t A li ti2014 Amendment Application2014 Amendment Application

Dated December 3 2014Dated December 3 2014Dated December 3, 2014Dated December 3, 2014DFO has no commentsDFO has no comments

8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (I)2014 A d t A li ti (I)2014 Amendment Application (I)2014 Amendment Application (I)

Dated December 4 2014Dated December 4 2014 Dated December 4, 2014Dated December 4, 2014 “Given the redundancy of the other “Given the redundancy of the other

amendments, it appears this proposal servesamendments, it appears this proposal servesamendments, it appears this proposal serves amendments, it appears this proposal serves little purpose, only complicating the regulatory little purpose, only complicating the regulatory environment. For the environment. For the YellowkinfivesYellowkinfives DeneDene First First Nation, superfluous review is onerous and Nation, superfluous review is onerous and frustrating, and in this case, only reinforces frustrating, and in this case, only reinforces

ti l ti hi b t titi l ti hi b t tinegative relationships between parties over negative relationships between parties over confusing details and lack of open and confusing details and lack of open and transparent communication of facts andtransparent communication of facts andtransparent communication of facts and transparent communication of facts and objectives.” objectives.”

8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (II)2014 A d t A li ti (II)2014 Amendment Application (II)2014 Amendment Application (II)

Engagement RecordEngagement Record –– “First and foremost“First and foremost Engagement Record Engagement Record –– First and foremost, First and foremost, YKDFN disagree with the De Beers YKDFN disagree with the De Beers approach to consultation In our opinionapproach to consultation In our opinionapproach to consultation. In our opinion, approach to consultation. In our opinion, there has been no meaningful there has been no meaningful engagement or consultation on thisengagement or consultation on thisengagement or consultation on this engagement or consultation on this amendment application. There has been amendment application. There has been no prior notice that further amendmentsno prior notice that further amendmentsno prior notice that further amendments no prior notice that further amendments were forthcoming to the original were forthcoming to the original application or discussion clarifying theapplication or discussion clarifying theapplication, or discussion clarifying the application, or discussion clarifying the scope and purpose of such amendments.”scope and purpose of such amendments.”

8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (III)2014 A d t A li ti (III)2014 Amendment Application (III)2014 Amendment Application (III)

Work PlanWork Plan –– “the hyper“the hyper--compressed workcompressed workWork Plan Work Plan –– the hyperthe hyper--compressed work compressed work plan is unacceptable. … This work plan plan is unacceptable. … This work plan punishes those operations who havepunishes those operations who havepunishes those operations who have punishes those operations who have exercised a good faith approach to exercised a good faith approach to regulatory approvals”regulatory approvals”regulatory approvalsregulatory approvals

8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (IV)2014 A d t A li ti (IV)2014 Amendment Application (IV)2014 Amendment Application (IV)

RecommendationsRecommendations RecommendationsRecommendations “YKDFN do not believe that the application is “YKDFN do not believe that the application is

complete until the project is available to engage in complete until the project is available to engage in consultations to explain the rationale and need for this consultations to explain the rationale and need for this amendment. Until that is complete, we believe that amendment. Until that is complete, we believe that the Board is unable to make further determinations.”the Board is unable to make further determinations.”the Board is unable to make further determinations.the Board is unable to make further determinations.

“As this situation is a consequence entirely of the “As this situation is a consequence entirely of the project’s choices, predictions and complete lack of project’s choices, predictions and complete lack of ff ti d ti t d t b liff ti d ti t d t b lieffective adaptive management, we do not believe effective adaptive management, we do not believe

that their desires should be acquiesced to simply that their desires should be acquiesced to simply because they now find themselves in a difficult because they now find themselves in a difficult yyposition. The company knew and did nothing to position. The company knew and did nothing to exercise environmental stewardship.”exercise environmental stewardship.”

8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.4 YKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (V)2014 A d t A li ti (V)2014 Amendment Application (V)2014 Amendment Application (V)

RecommendationsRecommendations RecommendationsRecommendations “As such, we ask the Board to utilize the full nine (9) “As such, we ask the Board to utilize the full nine (9)

months available for this amendment review. The months available for this amendment review. The current approach means that we will be sacrificing current approach means that we will be sacrificing many short term obligations that were scheduled in many short term obligations that were scheduled in good faithgood faith –– causing ripple effects in every othercausing ripple effects in every othergood faith good faith causing ripple effects in every other causing ripple effects in every other legislative and regulatory venue we participate in. If legislative and regulatory venue we participate in. If the project insists on pushing this redundant and the project insists on pushing this redundant and baseless amendment application through it should bebaseless amendment application through it should bebaseless amendment application through, it should be baseless amendment application through, it should be done in such a way as to minimize the impacts to done in such a way as to minimize the impacts to other parties.”other parties.”

De Beers Responses to YKDFNDe Beers Responses to YKDFNDe Beers Responses to YKDFNDe Beers Responses to YKDFN Provided a list of De Beers’ engagement activities withProvided a list of De Beers’ engagement activities with Provided a list of De Beers engagement activities with Provided a list of De Beers engagement activities with

YKDFNYKDFN “De Beers has discussed with YKDFN during almost “De Beers has discussed with YKDFN during almost

th f 2014 th bj t tt f th dth f 2014 th bj t tt f th devery month of 2014, the subject matter of the proposed every month of 2014, the subject matter of the proposed amendments”amendments”

“In closing, I would like to note that we are somewhat“In closing, I would like to note that we are somewhat In closing, I would like to note that we are somewhat In closing, I would like to note that we are somewhat surprised by your comments about lack of consultation. surprised by your comments about lack of consultation. Having said that, we value your input and look forward to Having said that, we value your input and look forward to continuing to work with your Department Certainly wecontinuing to work with your Department Certainly wecontinuing to work with your Department. Certainly, we continuing to work with your Department. Certainly, we would appreciate clarification with regards to your would appreciate clarification with regards to your expectations and format for meaningful engagement and expectations and format for meaningful engagement and consultation including the dissemination of records of consultation including the dissemination of records of meetings”meetings”

8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (I)2014 A d t A li ti (I)2014 Amendment Application (I)2014 Amendment Application (I)

Dated December 4, 2014Dated December 4, 2014P li i S iP li i S i “T thi d t hil“T thi d t hil Preliminary Screening Preliminary Screening –– “To propose this amendment while “To propose this amendment while there is already an amendment in front of the Board is there is already an amendment in front of the Board is redundantredundantas we are asked to consider the same information in two as we are asked to consider the same information in two concurrent processes Not only is this a waste of resources forconcurrent processes Not only is this a waste of resources forconcurrent processes. Not only is this a waste of resources for concurrent processes. Not only is this a waste of resources for capacitycapacity--limited First Nations, but it adds multiple layers of limited First Nations, but it adds multiple layers of confusionconfusion in trying to differentiate between the two as well as a in trying to differentiate between the two as well as a lack of knowledge of how the two amendments are relatedlack of knowledge of how the two amendments are relatedlack of knowledge of how the two amendments are related. lack of knowledge of how the two amendments are related. Further, since the gutting of the responsibilities of previously Further, since the gutting of the responsibilities of previously strong federal government authorities such as DFO, we have strong federal government authorities such as DFO, we have no no real expertisereal expertise to rely on to participate on behalf of the receiving to rely on to participate on behalf of the receiving pp y p p gy p p genvironment. environment. The fact that DFO had no comments on this The fact that DFO had no comments on this amendment is frightening and leads to the realization that if we amendment is frightening and leads to the realization that if we aren’t able to fully participate and dedicate more than a fair aren’t able to fully participate and dedicate more than a fair share of our resources to these review, they will be passed share of our resources to these review, they will be passed through by the Board that considers no comments to mean that through by the Board that considers no comments to mean that there are no concerns no the part of the partythere are no concerns no the part of the party.”.”

8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (II)2014 A d t A li ti (II)2014 Amendment Application (II)2014 Amendment Application (II)

Work PlanWork Plan –– “The condensed timelines for this“The condensed timelines for this Work Plan Work Plan The condensed timelines for this The condensed timelines for this review are not something that we enjoy following, s it review are not something that we enjoy following, s it was known that effluent compliance was an issue that was known that effluent compliance was an issue that th f l b f th tth f l b f th tthe company was aware of long before the present. the company was aware of long before the present. Yet now there ,must be urgency forced on all parties Yet now there ,must be urgency forced on all parties to push this amendment through so that De Beers to push this amendment through so that De Beers p gp gcan continue operating. It is can continue operating. It is not fair for the reviewers not fair for the reviewers to be forcedto be forced into dealing with this project again, and into dealing with this project again, and having a work plan that looks like this compound thehaving a work plan that looks like this compound thehaving a work plan that looks like this compound the having a work plan that looks like this compound the issue”issue”

8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (III)2014 A d t A li ti (III)2014 Amendment Application (III)2014 Amendment Application (III)

Engagement RecordEngagement Record –– “LKDFN is“LKDFN is frustratedfrustrated Engagement Record Engagement Record LKDFN is LKDFN is frustrated frustrated with De Beers’ with De Beers’ ongoing failureongoing failure to engage the to engage the community, and repeating ourselves to the community, and repeating ourselves to the y p gy p gBoards about this frustration, only to have it Boards about this frustration, only to have it continue and for the Boards to continue to ask continue and for the Boards to continue to ask if ’ l i ht ith th i ff t ”if ’ l i ht ith th i ff t ”if we’re alright with their efforts.”if we’re alright with their efforts.”

8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (IV)2014 A d t A li ti (IV)2014 Amendment Application (IV)2014 Amendment Application (IV) RecommendationsRecommendations

•• “We recommend that the Board not allow this “We recommend that the Board not allow this process to proceed any further without a more process to proceed any further without a more comprehensive community understanding of thecomprehensive community understanding of thecomprehensive community understanding of the comprehensive community understanding of the proposal.”proposal.”

•• “LKDFN recommends that the Board request the “LKDFN recommends that the Board request the retracting of this amendment and a focus on the retracting of this amendment and a focus on the 2013 amendment application as the proper avenue 2013 amendment application as the proper avenue for reviewing this WL.”for reviewing this WL.”gg

•• “It is our understanding that the Board cannot “It is our understanding that the Board cannot reject this application, but we believe that if it is reject this application, but we believe that if it is d l d t th f ll t t ibl it f thd l d t th f ll t t ibl it f thdelayed to the full extent possible, it forces the delayed to the full extent possible, it forces the company to be proactive in terms of mitigation company to be proactive in terms of mitigation efforts and investing in treatment options.”efforts and investing in treatment options.”

8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 8.3.5 LKDFN Comments on the November 2014 A d t A li ti (V)2014 A d t A li ti (V)2014 Amendment Application (V)2014 Amendment Application (V)

“We believe that De Beers has “We believe that De Beers has lost their lost their social licensesocial license to operate the Snap Lake to operate the Snap Lake mine and that if compliance woes mine and that if compliance woes continue, they should be in the area of continue, they should be in the area of losing their actual license to operate this losing their actual license to operate this mine. mine. What is the point of license limits if What is the point of license limits if they continually be manipulated to serve they continually be manipulated to serve the operationthe operation? How far is the Board willing ? How far is the Board willing to allow De Beers to travel down this path to allow De Beers to travel down this path of nonof non--compliance before there are compliance before there are repercussion.”repercussion.”

De Beers Responses to LKDFNDe Beers Responses to LKDFNDe Beers Responses to LKDFNDe Beers Responses to LKDFN Provided a list of De Beers’ engagement activities withProvided a list of De Beers’ engagement activities with Provided a list of De Beers engagement activities with Provided a list of De Beers engagement activities with

LKDFNLKDFN “We note that not all records are readily available on the “We note that not all records are readily available on the

MVLWB i t d ki ith th MVLWB tMVLWB i t d ki ith th MVLWB tMVLWB registry, and we are working with the MVLWB to MVLWB registry, and we are working with the MVLWB to address this. I hope this provides further clarification in address this. I hope this provides further clarification in terms of our ongoing efforts to engage and consult with terms of our ongoing efforts to engage and consult with g g g gg g g gmembers of the members of the Lutselk’eLutselk’e DeneDene First Nation. As noted First Nation. As noted above, we look forward to continuing to try to find above, we look forward to continuing to try to find mutually suitable times to meet with you and themutually suitable times to meet with you and themutually suitable times to meet with you, and the mutually suitable times to meet with you, and the community representatives with the goal of conducting community representatives with the goal of conducting mutually beneficial engagement regarding our current mutually beneficial engagement regarding our current

d d i ti ”d d i ti ”and proposed mine operations”and proposed mine operations”

8.3.6 FRMC Comments on 8.3.6 FRMC Comments on the November the November 2014 A d t A li ti2014 A d t A li ti2014 Amendment Application2014 Amendment Application

Fort ResolutionFort Resolution MetisMetis Council (FRMC)Council (FRMC) Fort Resolution Fort Resolution MetisMetis Council (FRMC) Council (FRMC) commented on December 11, 2014commented on December 11, 2014

“in regards to“in regards to DeBeer'sDeBeer's WaterWater LicenceLicence in regards to in regards to DeBeer sDeBeer s Water Water LicenceLicenceMV2011L2MV2011L2--0004 and their request to up the 0004 and their request to up the effluent limits is not an acceptableeffluent limits is not an acceptable practisepractise bybyeffluent limits is not an acceptable effluent limits is not an acceptable practisepractise by by any means. especially their request to double any means. especially their request to double the limits, these parameters were put in place the limits, these parameters were put in place to protect the environment, these parameters to protect the environment, these parameters or thresholds are the fine lines that should not or thresholds are the fine lines that should not

d th li it ”d th li it ”exceed the upper limits.”exceed the upper limits.”

8.4 Work Plan for Two Applications (I) 8.4 Work Plan for Two Applications (I) pp ( )pp ( )

8.4 Work Plan for Two Applications (II)8.4 Work Plan for Two Applications (II)

8 4 Work Plan for Two Applications (III)8 4 Work Plan for Two Applications (III)8.4 Work Plan for Two Applications (III) 8.4 Work Plan for Two Applications (III)

8 4 Work Plan for Two Applications (IV)8 4 Work Plan for Two Applications (IV)8.4 Work Plan for Two Applications (IV) 8.4 Work Plan for Two Applications (IV)

8.4.1 De Beers Comments on the Amendment 8.4.1 De Beers Comments on the Amendment A li ti P d W k Pl (I)A li ti P d W k Pl (I)Application Process and Work Plan (I)Application Process and Work Plan (I)

“De Beers has prefaced its November 2014“De Beers has prefaced its November 2014 De Beers has prefaced its November 2014 De Beers has prefaced its November 2014 (Interim) Amendment Application by noting that (Interim) Amendment Application by noting that the purpose of the application is to effectuate the purpose of the application is to effectuate p p ppp p ppshortshort--term, achievable and protective interim term, achievable and protective interim limits for TDS in effluent, in order to allow De limits for TDS in effluent, in order to allow De B t ti ti hil lifB t ti ti hil lif ff iiBeers to continue operations while a lifeBeers to continue operations while a life--ofof--mine mine limit is considered by the Board. We note that limit is considered by the Board. We note that this interim limit would be in effect for possiblythis interim limit would be in effect for possiblythis interim limit would be in effect for possibly this interim limit would be in effect for possibly only several weeks to months until it was to be only several weeks to months until it was to be replacedreplaced by whatever decision is rendered on by whatever decision is rendered on pp yythe December 2013 application and the updates the December 2013 application and the updates thereto filed November 28.” thereto filed November 28.”

8.4.1 De Beers Comments on the Amendment 8.4.1 De Beers Comments on the Amendment A li ti P d W k Pl (II)A li ti P d W k Pl (II)Application Process and Work Plan (II)Application Process and Work Plan (II)

“The Interim“The Interim licencelicence is required because theis required because the The Interim The Interim licencelicence is required because the is required because the review of the December 2013 Amendment review of the December 2013 Amendment Application is unlikely to be completed before Application is unlikely to be completed before pp y ppp y pissues of potential nonissues of potential non--compliance arise with the compliance arise with the Snap Lake mine and the existing overlySnap Lake mine and the existing overly--

titi lili li it It i d t d th tli it It i d t d th tconservative conservative licencelicence limits. It is understood that limits. It is understood that any decisions made in connection with the any decisions made in connection with the interim application do not in any way restrict theinterim application do not in any way restrict theinterim application do not in any way restrict the interim application do not in any way restrict the Board’s discretion when making a decision on Board’s discretion when making a decision on the ‘life of mine’ amendmentsthe ‘life of mine’ amendments.”.”

8 4 1 De Beers Comments on the Amendment8 4 1 De Beers Comments on the Amendment8.4.1 De Beers Comments on the Amendment 8.4.1 De Beers Comments on the Amendment Application Process and Work Plan (III)Application Process and Work Plan (III) “A Technical Session on the November 2014 (Interim)“A Technical Session on the November 2014 (Interim) A Technical Session on the November 2014 (Interim) A Technical Session on the November 2014 (Interim)

Application was not contemplated in the Application was not contemplated in the workplanworkplancirculated November 20, 2014. In our view, the subject of circulated November 20, 2014. In our view, the subject of the November 2014 (Interim) Application has beenthe November 2014 (Interim) Application has beenthe November 2014 (Interim) Application has been the November 2014 (Interim) Application has been before reviewers since April 2014, and as such, an before reviewers since April 2014, and as such, an additional technical session should not be required. additional technical session should not be required. Should the final Should the final workplanworkplan continue with a combined continue with a combined (November 2014 and December 2013) Technical (November 2014 and December 2013) Technical Session, De Beers suggests thatSession, De Beers suggests that the time allocated tothe time allocated toSession, De Beers suggests that Session, De Beers suggests that the time allocated to the time allocated to the November 2014 (Interim) Application should be the November 2014 (Interim) Application should be limited to no more than an hour and be held at the limited to no more than an hour and be held at the beginning of the session in order to maximizebeginning of the session in order to maximizebeginning of the session, in order to maximize beginning of the session, in order to maximize opportunity for discussion of the lifeopportunity for discussion of the life--ofof--mine mine amendmentsamendments.”.”

8.5 ENR Comment on 8.5 ENR Comment on Information RequestsInformation Requests

ENR recommends that the information requestsENR recommends that the information requests ENR recommends that the information requests ENR recommends that the information requests required for the interim application be required for the interim application be amalgamated with the ongoing postamalgamated with the ongoing post--EA EA g g g pg g g pregulatory process to allow for a sufficient review regulatory process to allow for a sufficient review of the November 28of the November 28thth, 2014 submission from De , 2014 submission from De B Thi i f ti i l d dditi lB Thi i f ti i l d dditi lBeers. This information includes additional Beers. This information includes additional toxicity testing results related to TDS which are toxicity testing results related to TDS which are intended to help provide information on potentialintended to help provide information on potentialintended to help provide information on potential intended to help provide information on potential effects, or lack thereof, related to increases in effects, or lack thereof, related to increases in EQCs and SSWQOs. A thorough review of this EQCs and SSWQOs. A thorough review of this Q Q gQ Q gsubmission would assist in the development of submission would assist in the development of IRs to De Beers regarding TDS and chlorideIRs to De Beers regarding TDS and chloride