REVIEW OF THE GOLDCORP MUSSELWHITE MINE … · REVIEW OF THE GOLDCORP MUSSELWHITE MINE MAIN POWER SUPPLY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Review prepared pursuant to subsection

REVIEW OF THE GOLDCORP MUSSELWHITE MINE MAIN POWER SUPPLY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Review prepared pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990 Province of Ontario by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

Cette publication hautement spécialisée n’est disponible qu’en anglais en vertu du règlement 441/97, qui en exempte l’application de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir de l’aide en français, veuillez communiquer avec le ministère de l’Environnement au 1-800-461-6290.

NEED MORE INFORMATION?

Public Record Locations The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

2 St.Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario

Voice: (416) 314-8001/1-800-461-6290 Fax: (416) 314-8452

The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations: Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals

Branch, 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A, Toronto, (416) 314-8001 / 1-800-461-6290

Kenora Area Office 808 Robertson Street, Kenora, (807) 468-2718 / 1-888-367-7622

Thunder Bay District Office, 3rd Floor, Suite 331, 435 James St. S., Thunder Bay, (807) 475-1315 / 1-800-875-7772

Library Thunder Bay Public Library, Waverly

Resource Library, 285 Red River Road, Thunder Bay, (807) 223-1475

Municipal Office Township of Pickle Lake, 2 Anne St.,

Pickle Lake, (807) 928-2034

First Nation Band Office Mishkeegogamang First Nation Band

Office, 1 First Nation Street, Mishkeegogamang, (807) 928-2414

Proponent Contact A copy can also be requested from:

Ms. Adele Faubert, Manager of Aboriginal Affairs, Musselwhite Mine, P.O. Box 7500 STN P, Thunder Bay, (807) 928-2200 ext. 6217

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was April 9, 2010. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 1

1. Environmental Assessment Process .................................................................... 2 1.1 Terms of Reference..................................................................................... 2 1.2 Environmental Assessment......................................................................... 3 1.3 Ministry Review.......................................................................................... 3

2. The Proposed Undertaking .................................................................................. 4

3. Results of the Ministry Review ............................................................................ 8 3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA............................................................... 8

3.1.1 Ministry Analysis........................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Consultation................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Conclusion ................................................................................... 11

3.2 EA Process ................................................................................................ 11 3.2.1 Conclusion ................................................................................... 13

3.3 Proposed Undertaking............................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Key Issues.................................................................................... 14 3.3.2 Conclusion ................................................................................... 15

4. Summary of the Ministry Review...................................................................... 15

5. What Happens Now? .......................................................................................... 17 5.1 Additional Approvals Required ................................................................ 17

List of Appendices

Appendix A Environmental Assessment Act Requirements Appendix B Submissions Received During the Initial Comment Period List of Tables

Table 1 Government Review Team Comment Summary Table Table 2 Public Comment Summary Table Table 3 Aboriginal Communities Comment Summary Table

Goldcorp Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply Environmental Assessment Review

Executive Summary

WHO Goldcorp Canada Ltd. (Goldcorp) WHAT Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the

proposed undertaking which includes: • up to 20 megawatts (MW) of additional diesel-fired electrical

generation, and • additional 11 year lifespan for the Musselwhite Mine.

WHEN EA submitted: January 15, 2010. EA comment period: January 15, 2010 to March 5, 2010 Ministry Review comment period: April 30, 2010 to June 4, 2010.

WHERE This site is located 480 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay. WHY Recent exploration by Goldcorp has confirmed the presence of

additional mineral reserves which can extend the mine life from approximately 2017 to 2028. To mine these reserves, Goldcorp needs approximately 20 MW of additional electrical capacity to increase underground ventilation and maintain safe working conditions.

CONCLUSIONS The Ministry of the Environment’s review of the EA concluded that it was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and contains sufficient information to assess the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

April 9, 2010 1


April 9, 2010 2

1. Environmental Assessment Process

Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of Reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On April 1, 2009, the Minister approved the Goldcorp Canada Ltd. (Goldcorp) Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply ToR. The ToR set out how Goldcorp would assess environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR outlined that an individual EA was required pursuant to the Electricity Projects Regulation (O. Reg. 116/01), and that the EA would be completed in accordance with section 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA. The ToR established the purpose of the project

EA Process

ToR Approval

↓ EA Preparation

↓ EA Submission

↓ EA Comment Period

↓ MMiinniissttrryy RReevviieeww

↓ Review Comment Period

↓ Minister’s Decision


and the preferred alternative to and alternative method of the undertaking. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

1.2 Environmental Assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and approval.

On January 15, 2010, Goldcorp submitted the Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply Environmental Assessment to the ministry for approval for the proposed diesel generated electrical capacity expansion. An EA for the proposed project was required under O. Reg. 116/01. The EA comment period ended on March 5, 2010.

1.3 Ministry Review

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal and provincial agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister of the Environment considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

April 9, 2010 3


The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review will be published in local newspapers indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from April 30, 2010 to June 4, 2010. The four publications where the Notice of Completion of the Review will be published are:

The Dryden Observer;

The Chronicle Journal;

The Wawatay News; and,

The Ignace Driftwood.

Copies of the Review will be placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.

2. The Proposed Undertaking

Goldcorp is seeking EAA approval for on-site diesel generation to supply up to 20 megawatts (MW) of additional electrical power to the existing Musselwhite Mine (Figure 1 and 2). Goldcorp’s Musselwhite Mine is an operating gold mine which began commercial production in 1997. The mine is located on traditional First Nation land on the southern shore of Opapimiskan Lake, approximately 480 km north of Thunder Bay, Ontario. The nearest town, Pickle Lake, is 103 km to the south. The mine is a significant contributor to the local economy with approximately 750 personnel on-site, 25% of whom are First Nations with 15% coming from local communities. The mine currently uses up to 19 MW of power from the Pickle Lake transmission line. Recent exploration by Goldcorp has confirmed the presence of additional mineral reserves which can extend the mine life from approximately 2017 to 2028. To mine these reserves, Goldcorp needs approximately 20 MW of additional electrical capacity to

April 9, 2010 4


increase underground ventilation and maintain safe working conditions. The additional electrical power cannot be obtained from the provincial grid due to system constraints at Pickle Lake which require significant upgrades. A detailed engineering study conducted by Goldcorp of alternatives for supplying the mine’s power needs concluded that diesel generation was the only reliable and feasible option. The proposed on-site diesel generation is planned to be comprised of 11 diesel generator sets each with varying outputs in the range of 1 to 2 MW. Each generator set will be encased in an enclosure, for ease of transportation, protection against the elements and sound attenuation. Each self-contained generator will have a footprint of approximately 38.4 square metres, for a combined footprint area of approximately 422.4 square metres for all 11 diesel generators. The diesel generators will be radiator cooled, and there will be no water use or wastewater discharge. The bulk fuel storage tanks and piping to each unit will be double walled to prevent fuel spills and will not have an open containment and hence will not require stormwater discharge. All diesel generators will be placed within the existing footprint of the mine. Four generators are proposed to be placed at the main mine site and processing area, and to be located within an approximate 20,000 square metre area. The remaining seven generators are proposed to be placed approximately 1.5 km away at the base of the Opapimiskan peninsula within an approximate 10,000 square metre area. Figure 3-3 in the EA provides a map of the proposed generator locations at the mine.

The proposed additional on-site electrical capacity is a short-term solution to meet the mine’s immediate operating needs. The proponent has plans to propose a transmission line in association with Hydro One as a means to meet long-term operating goals. Should additional transmission line capacity be made available at Pickle Lake in the future, the diesel generators would be retained as standby for use during power outages, used in other Goldcorp facilities, or sold.

If EAA approval is granted, the additional on-site diesel generated electrical capacity will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of approval; and will include the details outlined above. In addition, Goldcorp must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking. Goldcorp will be required to obtain approval for an application under section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) to amend the mine’s existing Certificate of Approval (Air/Noise).

April 9, 2010 5


Figure 1:

Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply EA

April 9, 2010 6


Figure 2:

Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply Site Plan

April 9, 2010 7


The purpose of the Ministry Review is to determine whether:

The EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA.

There are any outstanding issues with the EA.

The proposed undertaking has technical merit.

3. Results of the Ministry Review

The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA Must Haves in the EA:

The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR.

EA must include all the basic EAA information requirements.

EA demonstrates where all the additional commitments in the ToR were met, including studies and the consultation process.

3.1.1 Ministry Analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry concludes that the EA followed the framework set out in the approved ToR, addressed the commitments made in the approved ToR, and demonstrated how the required components of the EAA have been met.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be completed prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. The plan outlined by Goldcorp in its EA included newspaper notices and advertisements, public information centres, web conferences, and consultation with stakeholder working groups.

Section 5.1 of the EAA states:

“When preparing proposed terms of reference and an

environmental assessment, the proponent shall consult with such persons as may be interested.”

The ministry is satisfied with the level of consultation that occurred during the preparation of this EA and felt that it was appropriate for the proposed undertaking. The EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by Goldcorp to engage the GRT, the general public, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities in the EA process. Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and affected Aboriginal

April 9, 2010 8


communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to Goldcorp for a response. Summaries of all comments received along with Goldcorp’s responses are included in Tables 1-3 of this Review. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B. Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. GRT members from various agencies were provided copies of the December 2009 EA for their review during the seven-week comment period. All comments received were forwarded by the ministry to Goldcorp for a response. A summary of the comment’s received and Goldcorp’s responses can be found in Table 1. A summary of key issues raised can also be found in section 3.3.1 of this Review.

Public Consultation Public consultation played an important role in the process for this EA. Efforts were made to keep the public informed by providing opportunities for people to obtain additional information and/or have their questions addressed, as well as providing opportunities for discussion of issues and exchange of information with the proponent. The consultation program for this EA included:

Newspaper notices/advertisements; Public Information Centres; and, Three working groups to manage communication between Goldcorp and

Aboriginal communities. The public was also given the opportunity to review and comment on the December 2009 EA once it was submitted to the ministry. No comments were received from the public during the seven-week comment period.

Aboriginal Community Consultation

Aboriginal rights stem from practices, customs or traditions which are integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal community claiming the right. Treaty rights stem from the signing of treaties by Aboriginal peoples with the Crown. Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In addition to public consultation, the EAA requires that Aboriginal communities within the surrounding area of the proposed undertaking be consulted with during the pre-submission period. Aboriginal communities have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.

Goldcorp has established an Agreement with local Aboriginal communities which provides for a range of education, training, employment and business related services. Signatories to the Agreement are four

April 9, 2010 9


Aboriginal communities and two First Nations Councils. These include North Caribou Lake First Nation, Cat Lake First Nation, Kingfisher Lake First Nation, Wunnumin Lake First Nation, and the First Nation Councils of Windigo and Shibogama. Affiliates to the Agreement include three other First Nations that are affiliates to Shibogama First Nations Council (which include the Aboriginal communities of Wapekeka Lake First Nation, Wawakapewin Lake First Nation and Kasabonika Lake First Nation) and five other First Nations that are affiliates to Windigo First Nations Council (which include the Aboriginal communities of Bearskin Lake First Nation, Sachigo Lake First Nation, Slate Falls First Nation, Koocheching First Nation and Whitewater First Nation). Under the Musselwhite Agreement, the mine provides funding to the Aboriginal communities through revenue sharing, and environmental funding. Environmental funding is provided to monitor the environmental effects of the mine. It is used for professional third party review of environmental documentation for the site such as Certificate of Approval (C of A) applications, annual reports, and closure plans. It is also used for independent environmental monitoring of the mine such as downstream surface water quality and fisheries assessments.

Goldcorp established three working committees to manage communication with Aboriginal communities. These committees are: the Environmental Working Committee, the Working Committee, and the Implementation Committee. Each of the three committees has representatives from each of the Signatory communities under the Musselwhite Agreement. Through these committees, the mine is able to report its progress, receive feedback and hear concerns directly from local community members. Goldcorp engaged with all three committees throughout the EA process.

These Aboriginal communities and councils were also provided with project notices and the opportunity to provide comments or raise concerns regarding the project. The ministry followed up with the Aboriginal communities, and two comments were received.

The Chief of Bearskin Lake First Nation inquired as to whether funding was available to assist the community in hiring a technical expert to aid in the review of the project. The ministry responded to this letter advising the Chief that the ministry does not have the budget to assist with consultation on EAs or other approvals projects. The ministry also provided information regarding the ongoing environmental funding to the Signatory communities under the Muselwhite Agreement provided by Goldcorp. This funding is dispersed between Windigo First Nation Council and Shibogama First Nation Council. Goldcorp has indicated that Windigo First Nation Council retains an Environmental Consultant to technically review all monitoring and reporting documents, and has a technical department in-house. It is the ministry’s understanding that Bearskin Lake First Nation is a part of the Windigo First Nation Council.

The Wapekeka First Nation Community Development and Liaison Officer for the Wapekeka First Nation requested clarification regarding the relationship between the different EAs that Goldcorp is currently involved in. Goldcorp provided a detailed

April 9, 2010 10


response to the Chief of Wapekeka First Nation describing the relationship between Goldcorp’s involvement in various EA projects, both individual EAs and Class EAs. The different Individual EAs and Class EAs that Goldcorp is involved in are all aimed at securing short- and long-term power supply to the existing mine.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The EAA requires a proponent to consult interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of those consultations. The ministry is satisfied that Goldcorp appropriately followed the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR. Overall, the ministry has determined that Goldcorp provided sufficient opportunities for the public, government agencies, and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. The EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by Goldcorp to engage the GRT, the general public and Aboriginal communities during the EA process. The EA clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed in the future.

3.2 EA Process

EA is a planning process that requires the proponent to identify an existing problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred alternative. During recent exploration, Goldcorp has confirmed the presence of additional mineral reserves which can extend the mine life from approximately 2017 to 2028. To mine these reserves, Goldcorp needs approximately 20 MW of additional electrical capacity to increase underground ventilation and maintain safe working conditions. In the approved ToR, Goldcorp outlined its rationale for focusing the EA on the installation of additional diesel-fired electrical generation. Goldcorp determined that without additional power, the proposed mine life extension and expansion could not proceed, as the extended workings require increased delivery of fresh air into the mine from new shafts to maintain safe working conditions. Therefore, the “do nothing” alternative results in the mine site being unable to expand the mine workings and extend the mine life. Goldcorp followed the plan set out in the approved ToR, and the “do nothing” alternative was not considered as an option to be evaluated in the EA. SNC Lavalin, on behalf of Goldcorp, completed an engineering study in August 2007, prior to the submission of the proposed ToR. The study considered alternative means of supplying power to the mine site. The study included:

On-site diesel generation; Connection to the existing provincial grid; Run of river hydroelectric; and, Other alternative forms of energy.

April 9, 2010 11


The transmission system constraints at Pickle Lake make connection to the existing provincial grid exclude it as an alternative means as it is not possible without an expansion of the provincial system; the timing for which is outside of Goldcorp’s control. The study found that hydropower was not feasible as it fell short of the site’s power needs on a seasonal basis. The study also found that other options for delivering reliable power are not applicable for the far north. For example, the study found that wind power cannot consistently deliver reliable power under any practicable development scenario. Furthermore, forest biomass was also found not to be feasible as there is a lack of available fuel, when considering the remoteness of the site and distance from sources of wood residue. Technologies such as solar photovoltaic, fuel cells and micro-turbines are in various stages of research and development and were not found to be practical for a large scale mining operation. Therefore, the study concluded that on-site diesel generation was the only feasible option. Alternative methods were constrained to one option as outlined in the approved ToR. The ToR describes how there are no feasible alternatives to the location of facilities and infrastructure associated with power supply and transmittal at the existing mine site, as locations are driven by:

Proximity of existing related infrastructure (switchyard, standby diesel units, tankage, stormwater management);

An attempt to minimize the surface impact of the project by having facilities in close proximity on already developed lands (also thereby minimizing infrastructure requirements); and,

Location of non-power related facilities. Design alternatives were also not possible, as all facilities at the mine site (such as electrical connections, fuel tanks and fuel pipelines) must be designed according to applicable codes, regulations, and best management practices. As a result, major alternatives are not available with respect to design, and further assessment of design alternatives was not proposed in the approved ToR. Goldcorp outlined its decision making process in the EA. Goldcorp evaluated the preferred alternative method based on criteria originally identified in the approved ToR. The preferred method was evaluated based on three subcategories of the environment: atmospheric systems, surface water systems, and socio-cultural aspects. The atmospheric systems criterion included air quality impacts, noise impacts, and potential contribution of carbon dioxide emissions to climate change. The surface water systems criterion was based on compliance with discharge criteria from oil water treatment facilities and potential for adverse impacts associated with malfunctions or accidents. The socio-cultural aspects criterion was based on the potential for positive and negative impacts on communities along Highway 599. Section 6.0 of the EA provides an overview of the evaluation methods.

April 9, 2010 12


Measures to manage potential environmental effects are described in the EA, as well as monitoring and reporting commitments. The ministry and the GRT are generally satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures and proposed monitoring program; however, additional details and work will be required as part of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) approvals process, should the Minister and Cabinet approve the undertaking.

3.2.1 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision making process.

The EA contains an explanation of the problems and opportunities that prompted the study. Goldcorp considered diesel generation as the only solution to the identified problem and considered one alternative method as required by the approved ToR and evaluated it in the study area. The EA provides a description of the affected environment in the study area and identifies the elements of the environment that may be affected by the proposed undertaking.

The EA further describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking based on those potential environmental effects.

3.3 Proposed Undertaking

The proposed undertaking is described in section 3.0 of the EA (see also section 2 of this Review) and was evaluated based on the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of the environment was used to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed undertaking.

The proposed undertaking is for on-site diesel generation to supply up to 20 MW of additional electrical power to the existing Musselwhite Mine. The Musselwhite Mine is located on the southern shore of Opapimiskan Lake, 480 km north of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario. The nearest town, Pickle Lake, is 103 km to the south.

The on-site diesel generation is proposed to be comprised of eleven diesel generator sets with varying outputs in the range of 1 to 2 MW. This proposed increase in electrical capacity would allow the lifespan of the existing mine to be extended from 2017 to 2028.

While the procedural and legislative requirements of the approved ToR and EAA have been met, issues were raised during consultation with the GRT that need to be addressed before a decision about the undertaking can be made. A copy of each comment received is contained in Appendix B of this Review. Also, a summary of all comments, including Goldcorp’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction with those responses, can be found in Table 1.

April 9, 2010 13


The ministry is satisfied that all issues raised have been addressed or will be addressed by the response provided by Goldcorp and through additional work that will be completed in support of future approvals processes.

3.3.1 Key Issues

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by Goldcorp were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. Issues were raised by the GRT and Aboriginal communities. These submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments, including Goldcorp’s responses and MOE’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 -3. A summary of the key issues regarding noise impacts, air approval requirements, and stormwater management raised by ministry technical reviewers are summarized below. The ministry’s Air and Noise technical reviewer in the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch deemed the project feasible subject to the submission of an updated Acoustic Assessment Report which shows compliance at offsite points of reception and the onsite sleeping and living quarters (excluding recreational facilities) of the employee bunk houses. Goldcorp provided an updated Acoustic Assessment report that addressed the compliance of the onsite sleeping and living quarters. The technical reviewer determined that the updated report satisfied the request for demonstrating compliance with onsite sleeping and living quarters. The technical reviewer reiterated the requirement for an updated Acoustic Assessment Report that addressed the compliance at offsite points of reception. In addition, the Air and Noise technical reviewer provided comments pertaining to the air quality assessment submitted as part of the EA. The reviewer identified that the proposed project will require a C of A under section 9 (Air and Noise) of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). In order to obtain a C of A, the proponent will be required to identify all specific contaminant emissions from the diesel generators and then conduct dispersion modelling on each one. The results of the modelling will be compared to ministry standards and guidelines to verify that they meet those standards and guidelines or are acceptable to the ministry for those contaminants with no published ministry limit. Ontario Regulation 419/05, which pertains to local air quality, requires the proponent to model and assess air emissions during maximum worst case scenarios. Typical emissions from diesel generators include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulate matter (TSP), and various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The reviewer is not aware of any technical or site specific difficulties with demonstrating compliance, however, this will be confirmed during the ministry review of the C of A application which will specifically address the detailed modelling. The proponent is proposing to use emissions data that is provided by the manufacturer of the generators. This is standard engineering practice; however, these emission estimates will be confirmed by the ministry during the review of the C of A application. The ministry is

April 9, 2010 14


satisfied that potential impacts related to air quality can be addressed through future approvals under section 9 of the EPA. The ministry’s Water and Wastewater technical reviewer in the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch requested the following information:

Potentially contaminated stormwater discussion and appropriate drainage; How capacity containment for accidental spills will be addressed; and, Additional information pertaining to a detailed description of existing or planned

groundwater uses (mine water supply, etc.) in the proximity to the proposed location of the generator tanks, as well as the exact location of the generators.

Goldcorp provided detailed comments in response to the issues raised, including information on rain collection, containment pans, fuel transfer, and groundwater usage. The reviewer indicated he was satisfied with this information, and that additional information can be addressed as part of the Certificate of Approval process for the site. Goldcorp’s full response to the above comments is included in Table 1. Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the responses provided.

3.3.2 Conclusion

Goldcorp has provided responses to all comments received, as documented in Table 1, including those not summarized above.

The ministry is satisfied that:

the provisions of the EA; the commitments made by Goldcorp in the EA and in responses to comments

received during the comment period; and, the commitments by Goldcorp to complete additional work in support of future

approvals applications, will ensure that:

technical concerns raised by the GRT during the agency and public comment period will be addressed by the proponent;

the additional diesel generation will be installed and operated to comply with the ministry’s standards; and,

environmental effects can be managed.

4. Summary of the Ministry Review

This Review concludes that the EA complies with the requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA.

April 9, 2010 15


The EA has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.

Concerns raised by the GRT regarding technical issues have either been addressed by Goldcorp or will be completed as part of any future approvals processes.

The Review has explained Goldcorp’s analysis of the Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply EA. The preferred method was assessed and evaluated as required by the approved ToR. The EA has assessed the potential environmental effects of the preferred method. The ministry is satisfied that Goldcorp provided sufficient time and opportunities for the GRT, public, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to comment on the December 2009 EA.

April 9, 2010 16


April 9, 2010 17

5. What Happens Now?

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Ministry Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if that person believes that his or her concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

Give approval to proceed with the undertaking;

Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions; or

Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking.

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional Approvals Required

If EAA approval is granted, Goldcorp will still require another legislative approval to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 11.0 of the EA outlines the additional approval requirement under the Environmental Protection Act

If EAA approval is granted, the

proponent must still obtain any other

permits or approvals required to construct

and operate this undertaking.

Next Step in the EA Process

ToR Approval

↓ EA Preparation

↓ EA Submission

↓ EA Comment Period

↓ Ministry Review

↓ RReevviieeww

CCoommmmeenntt PPeerriioodd

↓ Minister’s Decision


April 9, 2010 18

(EPA) that is anticipated. This approval cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

APPENDIX A

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and Terms of Reference Requirements of the Environmental Assessment

EA Decision Making

Process EAA and ToR Requirements

Description and Characteristics of the Requirements Analysis of the EA

Identify an existing problem or opportunity

The EA should contain a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity.

Problem/Opportunities

Purpose of the Undertaking: s.6.1(2)(a)

If a specific undertaking has been identified provide a brief description.

Exploration completed by Goldcorp confirmed the presence of additional mineral reserves which can extend the mine life from approximately 2017 to 2028.

The purpose of the undertaking is to extend the

operating life of the gold mine, which requires additional electrical supply to increase mine ventilation and maintain safe working conditions.

Goldcorp provided a detailed description of the

problem/opportunity. The EA adequately described its purpose.

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Alternatives to: Alternative to s.6.1(2)(b)(iii)

“Alternatives to” represent functionally different ways of addressing the problem or opportunity. A reasonable range of “alternatives to” should be identified and evaluated. The proponent should be able to justify that it has considered a reasonable range of alternatives. The “do nothing” alternative to should be included in the evaluation and will represent the “bench mark” situation.

The EA is focussed on the on-site diesel generation for the additional electrical supply, and therefore, alternatives to on-site diesel generation were not considered as part of the EA.

Goldcorp provided a detailed rationale, based on

work done prior to the submission of the approved Terms of Reference (ToR), for focussing on one alternative method. A previous study conducted by Goldcorp, which looked at a range of alternatives, concluded that on-site diesel generation was the only feasible option to solve the power supply needs at the existing Musselwhite Mine.

Alternatives

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Alternatives methods:

“Alternative methods” include a description of different ways of implementing the preferred “alternative to”

Section 4.0 of the EA presents and describes rationale for “alternative methods” as presented in the ToR.

- 1 -

EA Decision Making Process

EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA

Alternative Methods s.6.1(2)(b)(ii)

A reasonable range of “alternative methods” should be identified and outlined.

The EA clearly explains how Goldcorp evaluated the proposed alternative method as required by the ToR.

Description of the Environment s.6.1(2)(c)(i)

Proponents must consider the broad definition of the environment including the natural, biophysical, social, economic, built and cultural conditions. The EA must provide a description of the existing environmental conditions in the study area. The EA must identify those elements of the environment that may be reasonably expected to be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed undertaking and/or the alternatives.

The study area includes the on-site footprint, and the immediate surrounding area. Information about the existing environment can be found in section 5.0 of the EA.

Goldcorp considered a broad definition of the

environment including natural, social, cultural, and economic environment.

The EA provided a description of the existing

environment within the study area to establish baseline conditions.

The EA identified the elements of the environment

that may be reasonably expected to be affected by the proposed undertaking.

Evaluation

Description of Potential Environmental Effects s.6.1(2)(c)(ii)

Both positive and negative environmental effects should be discussed. The EA must identify methods and studies used to analyze the potential environmental effects. The methods used are contingent on the type of project. Impact assessment methods and criteria used during the evaluation should be identified. The methods chosen must be clear, traceable and replicable so that interested parties can understand the analysis and logic used throughout the EA.

Potential environmental effects are evaluated throughout the EA.

The description included the potential for impacts

on the following aspects of the environment: natural; social; and, economic.

The methods chosen to analyze the environmental effects are outlined in the EA.

- 2 -



Description of the Actions Necessary to Prevent, Change, Mitigate or Remedy the Environmental Effects s.6.1(2)(c)(iii)

A description of future commitments, studies and a work plan may be included as part of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them.

The potential environmental effects and mitigation measures for the preferred undertaking have been considered throughout the evaluation.

A description of future commitments to prevent,

change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects is provided in the EA. Commitments include: Mitigation measures; Contingency and Reporting plans; and, Compliance monitoring.

Evaluation of Advantages and Disadvantages to the Environment s.6.1(2)(d)

The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Advantages and disadvantage to the environment are evaluated throughout the EA.

The proponent’s decision making is clear,

traceable, and reproducible. Description of Consultation with Interested Stakeholders s.6.1(2)(e)

A description of stakeholder consultation that occurred during the preparation of the EA needs be documented and should include consultation methods used, frequency of consultation, dates that events occurred, target audience, descriptions of key milestones for which stakeholders are providing input, comments received. The EA must identify any Aboriginal consultation efforts that have been made including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from First Nations.

Section 12.0 of the EA provides a summary of the consultation program undertaken, which involved meetings with the local community of Pickle Lake, Aboriginal communities, and the public. The program met the commitments in the approved ToR.

The Aboriginal consultation process included the

identification of interested communities and the on-going consultation of those communities throughout the EA process.

Throughout the development of the EA, interested

person were provided with opportunities to become involved in the process, access information, and were encouraged to participate in the identification and resolution of any issues.

- 3 -



The EA should include conflict resolution techniques to resolve issues used by the proponent to resolve outstanding issues with any stakeholders. There must be clear documentation as to how issues and concerns have been addressed.

Goldcorp documented the stakeholder consultation program including the consultation methods used, frequency of consultation, and date that events occurred. Goldcorp also described the key milestones where stakeholders provided input, and included comments received as part of the EA.

Goldcorp completed a comprehensive consultation

program to ensure that interested persons, groups, organizations, agencies, and local Aboriginal communities had an opportunity to provide comment and input into the EA. Specific efforts are listed below. Media advertising was used to ensure

interested parties were aware of consultation events.

Public Information Centres were held. Meetings were held with the Environmental

Working Group including representatives from Aboriginal communities.

Proposed Undertaking

Selection Process

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the undertaking s.6.1(2)(b)(i)

The description of the undertaking should specify what the proponent is seeking approval for under the EAA. The description should include information on the location, attributes, dimensions, emissions etc. The evaluation process should identify which is the preferred undertaking.

The proposed undertaking is the construction and development of up to 20 megawatts of additional diesel generated electrical capacity and applicable infrastructure, to provide power for the extension of the Musselwhite Mine workings.

The description of the proposed undertaking is

provided in section 3.0 of the EA, and includes information on location, size, output, installation and decommissioning of the proposed diesel generators.

Next Steps and Additional Commitments

Additional ToR Commitments

Outline any further commitments made by the proponent in the ToR.

A summary of the ToR commitments, as well as a description as to how the EA has addressed these commitments is provided in section 1.0 of the EA.

- 4 -

- 5 -


EAA and ToR Requirements

Description and Characteristics of the Requirements Analysis of the EA

Future commitments are described in section 9.0 of the EA, and a summary of the mitigation measure commitments corresponding to each environmental element is provided in section 7.0 of the EA.

Additional Approvals Outline additional approval requirements. Provide sufficient detail about the nature of the approval.

Additional approval requirements are listed in section 11.0 and include: An application under section 9 of the

Environmental Protection Act to amend the existing Certificate of Approval (Air/Noise).

APPENDIX B

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED DURING INITIAL COMMENT PERIOD

Copies are available in hard copy at the Environmental Assessment and

Approvals Branch

TABLES

- 1 -

Table 1. Government Review Team Comment Summary Table Proposal: Goldcorp Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply Environmental Assessment, December 2009 Proponent: Goldcorp Canada Ltd.

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status

Provincial Agencies Air and Noise Unit, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB), Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (February 26, 2010)

The Report has demonstrated the feasibility of the proposal satisfying the Ministry's sound level limits. Due to the set back distances of the potential noise sources to the subject off site points of reception (3,000 m +), it is likely that any potential excesses above the governing noise limits will not be significant, and easily addressed with conventional noise abatement methodologies such as silencers, mufflers, lagging or acoustic louvres. Therefore from a noise perspective we are able to endorse approval of the undertaking.

No response required. The MOE is satisfied.

The company is required to amend their existing Certificate of Approval (C of A) (Air/Noise) to include the new emissions sources (air and noise). In addition the Acoustic Assessment Report associated with the C of A should be amended/updated to demonstrate that the additional

No response required. The MOE is satisfied that the concerns raised will be addressed through additional work to be completed as part of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) application process.

- 2 -


power supply equipment will not exceed the governing limits if the recommendations as noted in Section 7 of the Noise Feasibility Study (Report), prepared by HGC Engineering are incorporated into the proposal.

The project is deemed feasible from a noise perspective, subject to the submission of an updated Acoustic Assessment Report. The Acoustic Assessment Report must show compliance at the offsite points of reception and the onsite sleeping and living quarters (excluding recreational facilities) of the employee bunk houses.

The bunkhouses are considered as part of the workplace under Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) legislation. Goldcorp Canada Ltd. is committed to providing an indoor sound environment for the living quarters of the employee bunkhouses consistent with Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) guidelines LU-131 for indoor sound level limits from sources such as road traffic. These limits are 45 dBA in sleeping quarters of a hotel/motel, which is a comparable arrangement, on a daytime/nighttime average basis. See additional details in attached letter.

The MOE is satisfied that the concerns raised will be addressed through additional work to be completed as part of the EPA application process.

Air and Noise Unit, EAAB, MOE (April 7, 2010)

The proposal will involve air emissions from diesel generators which will require a Certificate of Approval under Section 9 of the

No response necessary. The MOE is satisfied that the concerns raised will be addressed through additional work to be completed as part

- 3 -


Environmental Protection Act. In order to obtain a Certificate of Approval, the proponent will be required to identify all specific contaminant emissions from the diesel generators and then conduct dispersion modelling on each one. The results of the modelling will be compared to MOE standards and guidelines to verify that they meet those standards and guidelines or are acceptable to MOE (for those contaminants with no published MOE limit). Typical emissions from diesel generators include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particular matter (TSP), and various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Each of these contaminants will be modeled and assessed during the review of the Certificate of Approval application. We are not aware of any technological or site specific difficulties with demonstrating compliance, however, this will be confirmed during our review of the Certificate of Approval application

of the EPA application process.

- 4 -


which will specifically assess the detailed modelling. The proponent is proposing to use emissions data that is provided by the manufacturer of the generators. This is standard engineering practice; however, these emission estimates will be confirmed by EAAB during the review of the CofA application. Ontario Regulation 419/05 requires the proponent to model and assess air emissions during maximum worst case scenarios. Sometimes, this can occur during startup or shutdowns, but is normally the maximum rate of operation or production. We will expect the proponent to identify the worst case scenario with engineering calculations in the application for a Certificate of Approval.

Water and Wastewater Unit, EAAB, MOE (February 26, 2010)

In the Terms of Reference it is noted that “Stormwater runoff from the fuel storage tanks for the proposed diesel generation option will be retained in the secondary containment and transferred periodically to existing oily water

At the time of issue of the ToR, it was anticipated that the fuel tanks would be single walled construction and therefore need to be placed within conventional open containment berms. Such berms collect

The MOE is satisfied.

- 5 -


separators for treatment”. However, section 6 of the EA notes no discharges of stormwater. While it is clear that the generators will be closed containment units, contact stormwater needs to be discussed and appropriate drainage provided. This needs to be addressed by the proponent by submitting a stormwater management (SWM) analysis and an application to amend the existing CofA to satisfy the requirements of section 53 OWRA. Sections 3.1, 3.2.2, and 3.4. of the EA notes that each fuel storage tank will be double walled construction with integral secondary containment. The secondary containment is also noted in Appendix A noted above, but there seems to be no clear description of the proposed secondary containment in Section 6.2.3 of the EA. Also, noting that site preparation to place the generators will consist of leveling and gravel placement, capacity containment for accidental spills needs to be described. This needs

rainwater which needs to be removed for treatment and the ToR described that need. Instead of selecting single walled fuel tanks, the final design now includes double walled fuel storage tanks that have integral secondary containment. Though more costly, the advantage is that these tanks do not collect rainwater and there is no treatment requirement. Details of the storage tanks were included in Appendix B of the EA. The bulk tanks are filled by hose connection from the delivery truck. Containment pans are included as part of the bulk fuel tank to collect any drips that could occur from the hose during connection or disconnection. Each generator will be delivered to the site within a self-contained unit similar to a shipping container. Fuel transfers from the bulk storage

- 6 -


to be addressed by the proponent in detail.

tanks to each generator unit will be via double walled piping and will also not result in contact stormwater. The selection of double walled tankage and piping has eliminated the potential for stormwater contamination and the requirement for treatment.

Section 5.1.2 of the EA provides the description of the soil and groundwater conditions (primarily sand and significant gravel and stoney phases) and it is noted that “Groundwater flow in the overburden and shallow bedrock near the mine site is generally governed by topography, with a component flowing to the north of the Opapimiskan Lake…”. Notwithstanding the above, there seems to be no detail description of existing or planned groundwater uses (mine water supply, etc.) in the proximity, i.e. 500 m radius, to the proposed location of the generator tanks. Also, Figure 3-1, and 3.2 of the EA, do not seem to show the proposed exact location of the generators. This needs to be addressed by the proponent.

Historically there has been no use of groundwater at the site for potable or process needs and all water has been obtained from Opapimiskan Lake. Although it is not part of the power supply project, the mine is proposing to install a well in the area of the esker for process water supply to a concrete plant for tailings management. Mine staff has been in discussions with the MOE’s district office staff regarding the information requirements for a Permit to Take Water. Generator locations are shown in Figure 3-3.


- 7 -


Environmental Assessment Project Coordination (EAPC), EAAB, MOE (March 8, 2010)

(re. sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)) Page 11 of the approved ToR states that “A First Nation seasonal hunting camp is in the vicinity of the mine site which will be assessed for noise effects.” Confirm the manner in which noise effects were assessed for the First Nation seasonal hunting camp.

The hunting camp is shown as receptor R2 on Figure 5-2. Baseline noise measurements were taken at that location (Table 5-3) and the effects of noise on the hunting camp were modeled. The resulting noise levels are summarized in section 6.2.2 and meet provincial criteria. A more detailed analysis is provided in the noise report (Appendix B).


(re. sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)) Page 14 of the approved ToR states that “The effects of the additional vehicular traffic resulting from the transportation of fuel will be assessed. As fuel is currently transported to the mine, Goldcorp has developed a spill response management plan which will be outlined in the EA report.” The EA report makes reference to different spills management plans, but they are not outlined in the EA report. Provide additional details on these management plans.

The spill management plan is a living document that is updated as required to ensure that it is current. It covers the following topics: Administration; Plan application and scope; Contact information; Plant access; Risk analysis; Risk assessment process; Hazard identification; Adverse effect spills; Incident evaluation and

level of response; Mobilization and response; Pollutant and adverse effect

monitoring; Roles and responsibilities;


- 8 -


Resources and equipment; Training; Maintenance; Notifications and alarms;

and, Clean-up, restoration and

disposal. (re. sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of

the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)) Page 15 of the approved ToR states that “During the EA, a monitoring framework will be developed for the post-EA phase, to address all stages of the proposed undertaking (design, construction, operation, decommissioning and reclamation). It will include (where appropriate) compliance and effects monitoring.” Not all aspects of this commitment are present in the EA, provide an updated monitoring plan that includes all aspects of this commitment.

The site has an Environmental and Sustainability Policy (ESP) in place which covers all aspects of the mine operations including the design phase, construction, operations and closure. This is supplemented by site procedures for environmental management. Implementation for the power project is as follows. During the design, one generator was selected to meet EPA Tier I requirements while the remaining generators were selected meet EPA Tier II standards for low air and noise emissions. Specifications for and the fuel tanks and piping were double walled to prevent spills.


- 9 -


Construction of the power plant consists of the provision of a concrete slab for placement of the units. The units come to site fully assembled and are off-loaded onto the pad by crane. The mine has full-time environmental staff on board to monitor and inspect the construction phase in accordance with the ESP. As noted in the EA weekly reports will be prepared and submitted to the local MOE district office. The mine CofA for air/noise and wastewater provide conditions for monitoring during operations. As a requirement of the mine license, a “Closure Plan” is filed and approved by MNDMF which covers details of the reclamation and decommissioning of the mine site and all facilities. This plan is circulated to interested agencies, (including MOE) for review and comment. As the generator units are self-contained portable units, if they

- 10 -


become redundant in advance of mine closure they will be removed from site for reuse or scrap.

(re. sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)) The language used to describe the methodology study area for transportation (socio-economic conditions) in the approved ToR is different than the parameters described in the EA. Confirm if there is any difference in what was proposed to be studied and what was studied in the EA.

The ToR (Table 2) indicates the EA will evaluate: Potential for positive and negative impacts on communities along Highway 599 from Ignace to the site from transporting additional fuel. The EA considered the extent of additional traffic along the route to determine if there is a significant change that would affect the communities. The EA determined that the additional traffic is minimal consisting of less 1% within Pickle Lake and less than 7% elsewhere along the route. Section 6.2.4 of the EA concludes: The potential effect of this minor increase in traffic volume to the surrounding communities or to the environment is therefore insignificant.


Include a list of studies and reports that were undertaken in relation to this EA. As this is an expansion, and reference is made to previous work done, include these as well.

A complete listing of the studies and reports used in the development of the EA is provided in Section 13.


- 11 -


The mine is not expanding production capacity or the extent of its mining lease. It is extending its underground workings (and hence mine life) into areas previously approved. The additional power is required to provide the necessary ventilation for safe working conditions.

The EA must include a complete table of commitments based on the EA for future compliance purposes. Ensure that all commitments made during the EA, and as part of public consultation are included in the EA. This table needs to include commitments made for future consultation.

The EA report includes all commitments made during public consultation. The Signatory First Nations were provided with drafts of the EA and presentations given prior to finalization.


The EA must include a tabular summary of the requirements of the approved ToR and where in the EA they are discussed. This includes all commitments made in the ToR, including consultation. Provide an updated table to reflect this.

A tabular summary is included in the EA under section 1.2 as Table 1-1 “Summary of Approved Terms of Reference Requirements”. This table outlines the requirements stated in the ToR as well as provides reference where within the Individual EA Document these requirements are discussed (rightmost column). This table was taken directly from the Approved ToR.


- 12 -


In addition, consultation activities outlined in the ToR that were recommended include:

Meetings with the Environmental Working Committee (including documentation);

A project website; Review of Draft EA by

communities on the Distribution list; and,

Review of detailed study reports.

These elements were all adhered to and summarized within the EA report (Section 12). An updated table of requirements (Table 1-1) is provided as an attachment.

(re. Section 5.0 of EA) Provide a more detailed summary of studies undertaken as part of this EA. Clearly describe how and why the boundaries of the overall study area were chosen, and how they may have differed for any environmental component.

Detailed studies undertaken for the EA were for the air and noise emissions as these are the key effects of the diesel generators. Secondary source information was available at site for describing the natural environment.


- 13 -


State specifically if there are any federally or provincially endangered species that may be impacted from this project.

The boundaries of the study area for air and noise were based on meeting regulatory criteria within the surface land claim area. Consideration was also given to the effects at the hunting camp shown as receptor R2 on Figure 5-2. The transportation of fuel was based on the highway and road access from Ignace to the site. The site maintains a listing of Species at Risk that are known to have a presence in the area and has a Fish and Wildlife Management Plan (Section 5.3.2) to protect wildlife from mine operations. The Power Plant project will be located within the operating footprint of the mine and does not encroach on wildlife habitat.

(re. Section 6.0 and 7.0 of EA) Provide greater detail on the spills action plans for all stages in the project, including transportation, storage and handling.

See comments above on the spill management plan in effect at the mine.


(re. Section 12.0 of EA) The EAA requires that the consultation undertaken during the course of

Throughout section 12 elements of consultation that were undertaken in support of the EA


- 14 -


the environmental assessment process be fully documented in the EA. The EA does not summarize any correspondence with the GRT. The consultation appendix of the EA includes a letter received by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). Along with any other correspondence/consultation that was undertaken with the GRT, include a description of the correspondence with INAC and any actions/follow-up that resulted from received correspondences. In addition, state whether, as a result of any consultation, there are any outstanding issues of concern. Confirm whether any other consultation activities took place with members of the public, including the community of Pickle Lake. Confirm that in the consultation appendix all meeting minutes are included from meetings with First Nations, agencies/ministries, and the public. List the number of Public Information Centres that were held, including where and when

are summarized. Activities including the GRT include the delivery of the Notice of Commencement (Section 12.2.1, 3rd paragraph), a meeting with the MOE (Section 12.3.1.1) and the elements related to these activities (i.e., meeting minutes, letters sent and responses) in Appendix E and G. No comments that were received from the GRT required follow-up and, as such, no additional documentation related to responding to their comments are included. Any action items outlined in the meeting held with the MOE have been included in the EA report. There were numerous PICs and meetings (Environmental Working Committee (EWC)) held with and at the various First Nations communities involved with the project. These meetings were all summarized in section 12 of the EA report and supporting documentation (minutes, presentations, etc.) included in

- 15 -


they took place. Provide a summary of the information that was presented, or any documentation provided to participants.

Appendix G and H. No additional consultation was held at Pickle Lake. Goldcorp has been trying to organize a PIC with the Mishkeegogamang community, with no success to date. A list of the PICs held within the various participating communities is included in section 12.3.3. Presentation materials related to these meetings are provided in Appendix H. In total, 3 meetings within First Nations communities were held, and one other in Pickle Lake. Dates and locations of these meetings (including if via radio or TV broadcast) are included within the individual subsections within section 12.3.3. The presentation included information related to 3 separate EA processes for various projects taking place at the mine site. Information related to this EA included:

Description of generators and project in general;

- 16 -


Where to find the Draft EA;

EA process timelines, in general; and,

Permitting. Another meeting with the EWC is planned for mid-March where any further comments will be reviewed and project updates relayed to the Committee, including EA process.

Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning (APEP), MOE (March 9, 2010)

(re. Page 26, Section 5.5.2.2 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) It is unclear why this section is present in the Environmental Assessment document. If text regarding the applicability of the PPS is to be included, then the direction as stipulated in Part III of that document (see page 1-2 of 2005 PPS) should be discussed. That section clearly indicates that the PPS needs to be read and applied as a whole. The PPS is more than a set of individual policies and it is intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policies are to be applied in each situation. The desirability of plucking one policy from the PPS

It is agreed that the PPS is not relevant to the EA for this project. The intent was to demonstrate that natural resources play an important role in the Ontario economy.


- 17 -


and quoting it without this caveat is somewhat questionable and could be misleading to readers of the ESR.

Air Quality Analyst, Northern Region, MOE (April 1, 2010)

Regarding background/baseline concentrations: If there is no nearby MOE/EC air quality monitoring stations exist, air quality monitoring should be considered to establish a baseline for the individual EA. Using a 10-30th percentile range from MOE air quality monitoring stations is too arbitrary, and unacceptable. Hydrocarbon was mentioned, but was not included in the results. List of contaminants does not include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which is one pollutant of concern from diesel emissions. Volatile organic carbons (VOCs) and PAHs should be added and included in the assessment results from modelling. It assumes all diesel generators are operating in continuous mode, which may underestimate the results from dispersion modelling at point of impingement (POI).

The mine site is remote from any major emission sources, being approximately 500km North of Thunder Bay. There are no nearby industrial or urban sources. In the absence of local baseline air quality, the 10-30th percentile of data from Northern Ontario monitoring stations was used as being indicative of the air quality that can be expected in a remote area in the absence of the mine. AMEC recently completed an EA on another mine site development in a remote area of Northern Ontario and the 10-30th percentile of monitoring data from the MOE monitoring stations in urban areas to the south was accepted by both the MOE and Environment Canada as an appropriate method of estimating remote background air quality levels. Hydrocarbon was not included in the modeling as there is no

The MOE is satisfied that the concerns raised will be addressed through additional work to be completed as part of the EPA application process.

- 18 -


Scenarios including diesel generator(s) start-up should be considered. Using emission rates for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) from manufacture data may underestimate the results from modelling. I don’t think this is a conservative estimate.

air quality standard for hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are a mix of compounds and no specific impact can be associated with a mixture. Similarly VOCs are families of compounds for which there is no air quality standard and no specific air quality impact or emission regulation associated with VOC emissions. As a class of compounds, PAHs also do not have a class point-of-impingement standard or guideline. Some individual PAH compounds do have POI criteria, but the specific emissions of the speciated PAH compounds are usually considered to be insignificant from diesel engine emissions. For example, benzo(a)pyrene is considered to be one of the most critical PAH compounds, The emission rate of B(a)P is 10-7 times the emission of nitrogen oxides. Even though the current B(a)P standard is also much lower (about 10-5 lower), B(a)P would still be a few orders of magnitude below its standard and therefore

- 19 -


considered insignificant. The modeling assumed a full complement of 11 generators would be operating simultaneously, which is extremely conservative. As the site operates on a 24 hour, 7day week schedule, it will be reliant on the generators to meet baseload demand for mine ventilation. An individual generator will either run continuously, be on standby or off-line for maintenance. Start-up will not occur en-masse, but one generator at a time, based on incremental changes in demand or following maintenance. The generator enclosures have internal oil heaters to maintain temperature while not in operation, and they reach operating conditions within about 5 minutes of start-up. The effects of the brief start-up of a single generator on the aggregate emissions from the mine site and the 1 hour or 24-hour POIs will therefore be minimal. At the MOE meeting

- 20 -


of September 18th, 2009 it was discussed that start-up emissions were not an issue and would not be considered in the modeling. The emissions information provided by the manufacturer can be considered reliable. These are provided as design criteria and provided to demonstrate compliance with any regulatory emission regulations in the U.S. and also to provide reliable data upon which to design the project. These are provided by the vendor, not as an absolute “best” emission, but as one that these engines can readily attain. It should also be noted that the emission data is based on 100% load, a condition that engines are very seldom run at. As such, emissions are conservative and should be lower than provided.

Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC), (March 4, 2010)

The Ministry previously commented on the proposed Terms of Reference for the project in December 2008. Staff indicated that due to the extensive

No response required. The MOE is satisfied.

- 21 -


disturbance through mining and related construction activities in the area where the diesel generators are to be installed, the Ministry of Culture determines the area to be of low potential for discovering archaeological resources. Additionally, it was determined that the site has low built heritage and landscape potential based on our screening criteria. Therefore, we confirm that MTC is satisfied with the EA and do not require any further involvement.

Ontario Power Generation No comments. No response required. The MOE is satisfied. Hydro One Networks Inc. No comments. No response required. The MOE is satisfied. Ministry off Aboriginal Affairs No comments. No response required. The MOE is satisfied. Ministry of Health Promotion No comments. No response required. The MOE is satisfied. Ministry of Economic Development

No comments. No response required. The MOE is satisfied.

Ministry of Trade and Investment


Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure


Ministry of Northern Development and Mines


Ministry of Transportation No comments. No response required. The MOE is satisfied. Federal Agencies

- 22 -


Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency


Department of Indian and Northern Affairs


Environment Canada No comments. No response required. The MOE is satisfied. Fisheries and Oceans Canada


Local Agencies None

Table 2. Public Comment Summary Table Proposal: Goldcorp Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply Environmental Assessment, December 2009 Proponent: Goldcorp Canada Ltd.

Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status No public comments received. N/A N/A No action required.

- 1 -

- 1 -

Table 3. Aboriginal Communities Comment Summary Table Proposal: Goldcorp Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply Environmental Assessment, December 2009 Proponent: Goldcorp Canada Ltd.

Aboriginal Communities Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status North Caribou Lake First Nation

None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied.

Cat Lake First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Kingfisher Lake First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Wunnumin Lake First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Bearskin Lake First Nation Bearskin Lake First Nation

inquired if funding from the MOE was available to hire experts to aid in Bearskin Lake First Nation’s review of the Musselwhite Mine Power Supply EA.

The MOE responded in writing notifying Bearskin Lake First Nation that the MOE does not have the budget to assist with consultation on EAs or other approval projects. The MOE also provided information regarding the ongoing environmental funding to the Signatory Communities under the Musselwhite Agreement provided by Goldcorp. This funding is dispersed between Windigo First Nation Council and Shibogama First Nation Council through Mishamikiwiish Akiw Otabitamaageg. Goldcorp has indicated that Windigo First Nation Council retains an Environmental Consultant to technically review all monitoring and reporting documents,


- 2 -

Aboriginal Communities Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status and has a technical department in-house. It is the MOE’s understanding that Bearskin Lake First Nation is a part of the Windigo First Nation Council.

Sachigo Lake First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Slate Falls First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Koocheching First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Whitewater First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Wapekeka First Nation A representative of the

Wapekeka First Nation requested clarification regarding the relationship between the Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply EA and the other EA initiatives that Goldcorp is currently involved in.

On March 3, 2010, Goldcorp wrote a letter addressed to Chief Norman Brown of the Wapekeka First Nation. The letter outlined that there is insufficient provincial transmission connection at Pickle Lake, and Goldcorp has been investigating various short and long term means of obtaining additional electrical energy. The different Individual EAs and Class EAs have been initiated to address the same electrical capacity need of the mine.


Wawakapewin First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Kasabonika First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Mishkeegogamang First Nation None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. First Nations Councils Windigo First Nations Council None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied. Shibogama First Nations Council

None received. None required. The MOE is satisfied.

MAKING A SUBMISSION?

A five-week public review period ending June 4, 2010 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A

Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 Fax: (416) 314-8452

Re: Musselwhite Mine Main Power Supply Environmental Assessment

Attention: Ms. Michelle Fromme-Marcellin, Project Officer Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

Documents

REVIEW OF THE GOLDCORP MUSSELWHITE MINE … · REVIEW OF THE GOLDCORP MUSSELWHITE MINE MAIN POWER SUPPLY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Review prepared pursuant to subsection