1

NRCan’s Final Hearing Presentation:Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅᓯᐅᑎ ᓈᓚᒡᑐᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᐃᑦ: ᑭᒡᒐᕕᒃ ᓄᖑᑦᑐᐃᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ

Prepared for the Nunavut Impact Review Boardᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᑕ

ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔩᑦ

Presented by:John Clarke

Director, Environmental Assessment DivisionMarch 2-14, 2015

2

Outline

1. Mandate & role

2. Technical Review• Terrain Stability• Hydrogeology, permafrost and taliks• Mine waste characterization and management

3. Questions

3

NRCan’s Mandate

Enhance responsible development, use and competitiveness of Canada’s natural resources and products.

Lead science and technology in the fields of earth sciences, energy, forests, and minerals and metals.

4

NRCan’s Role in this Project

• Explosives Act and Regulations

• Geochemical characterization expertise:• Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching • Mine Waste Management

• Earth sciences expertise:• Geology• Permafrost and Hydrogeology

5

Technical Review: Mine waste characterization and management

• Focused on potential for acid rock drainage and metal leaching and mine waste management.

• Identified a number of verifications for inclusion in the FEIS; these were not major deficiencies.

• AREVA has addressed NRCan’s comments.

NRCan is satisfied with the information provided by AREVA and the commitments related to mine waste characterization and management.

6

Technical Review: Permafrost and terrain stability

Focused on the design and performance of the foundations for site facilities (e.g. ore/waste rock piles, site access/haul roads, water management facilities and Andrew Lake dewatering facility).

NRCan recommended that AREVA conduct further site specific geotechnical investigations for detailed design.

AREVA’s commitments sufficiently address NRCan’s recommendations.

7

Technical Review – Hydrogeology, permafrost and presence of taliks

Groundwater flow is influenced by the presence of permafrost.

In its review of the DEIS, NRCan recommended that AREVA: Collect additional baseline data on ground

temperatures (thermal conditions). Consider that permafrost thickness may vary

within the local study area. Consider a range of ground temperatures in

the identification of lakes that may have open taliks.

8

Technical Review – Hydrogeology, permafrost and presence of taliks

Based on NRCan’s review it is not clear whether the revised analysis actually considered warmer ground temperatures or if there is an error in the text.

AREVA has clarified that their analysis considered warmer ground temperatures. AREVA’s comments and commitments sufficiently

address NRCan’s recommendations.

9

Summary of NRCan’s Review

NRCan is satisfied with the information provided by AREVA.

AREVA’s Post EA commitments have addressed NRCan’s recommendations.

NRCan does not have additional recommendations for the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s consideration.

10

10

Questions?