As you are aware, on January 30, 2015, the Independent Expert Engineering Investigation and Review Panel (Panel) issued its report on the breach of the Mount Polley tailings facility (Report). The Panel’s Report included several findings and recommendations to enhance safety and prevent the future failure of tailings dams. The Panel findings and recommendations addressed both existing tailings facilities, as well as newly proposed facilities.

The Government has accepted all of the recommendations and indicated that they will be implemented. The Ministry of Energy and Mines will be establishing a process to consider implementation, and has advised that it will take at least a year to consider the results of ongoing investigations and complete a review of the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia.

The Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) has been working closely with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment to identify appropriate considerations of the Panel Report at the environmental assessment level. Based on this collaboration, EAO is setting out the following requirements to enable EAO to evaluate tailings management options and efforts to mitigate risks and potential impacts. This will help to ensure that mine proponents are preparing for new regulations and policies, which may be more prescriptive, but will generally be consistent with the approach set out below.

Specifically, in order to ensure that environmental assessments (EA) on mining projects in British Columbia appropriately consider the implications of the Panel findings and recommendations, I am requiring that proposed mining projects that have new proposed tailings dams provide the following information:

Proponents must provide a description and an assessment of alternative means of undertaking the proposed project with respect to options for tailings management that considers technology, siting and water balance.

The assessment must present and compare best practices and best available technologies for tailings management for the project, along with options for managing water balance to enhance safety and reduce the risk (likelihood and consequence) of a tailings dam failure during all phases of mine life (construction, operations, closure, post-closure). The assessment must present and compare technically and economically viable engineering solutions that are available to adequately address site conditions.

The assessment must provide a clear and transparent evaluation of the factors that supported the selection of the most suitable option. Factors that will be taken into consideration in the evaluation include safety, technical and financial aspects, and implications for environmental, health, social, heritage and economic values. The assessment must consider these factors in relation to tailings management options in both the short and long-term context. Life cycle cost assumptions (construction, operations, closure, post-closure) must be included in the analysis of options.

While EAO recognizes that the selection of project design rests with the proponent, the requirements outlined in this letter are to ensure that proponents have:

•  considered other options that can address the potential for adverse effects on the factors noted above;

•  for the project design option selected, considered the potential risks and implications of that option, and have a technically and economically feasible plan to address the potential risks and implications; and

  provided a clear and transparent rationale for the selected option(s).

Moving forward, further information and analysis of Panel recommendations will be dealt with through a variety of other agencies and initiatives. These include the regulatory review of mining projects at the Mines Act permitting stage, through policy development and regulation review (such as the review of the Health Safety and Reclamation Code recently announced by the Honourable Bill Bennett, Minister of Energy and Mines), and through initiatives by other agencies such as the Canadian Dam Association, various mining industry associations, and the BC Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. EAO will advise you if any of this future work results in a change to these requirements.

I anticipate that the alternative means assessment also may be of interest to Aboriginal Groups potentially affected by the proposed Project. I encourage proponents to include any information in their assessments regarding potential implications of the options for Aboriginal Interests (asserted or established Aboriginal rights, including title and treaty rights). This will enable proactive and timely discussions with Aboriginal Groups in the EA for your project.

The proposed Schaft Creek Mine Project (Schaft Creek) is in the Pre-Application Stage of the EA, and the Application Information Requirements (AIR) for Schaft Creek have been issued. Pursuant to Section 13 of the Environmental Assessment Act (Act), I am ordering that the AIR be amended with the language specified above. The sufficiency of the information provided will be considered when the Application is submitted for evaluation under Section 16 of the Act, as a part of the overall evaluation of the Application. If the Application is accepted for review, the information will be considered in the assessment of potential adverse effects in Application Review.

I recognize that this will require proponents to undertake additional assessments and may be more work than you had expected for the EA. It is important that EAs allow for sufficient time for the Report findings and recommendations to be adequately addressed at an EA level, and that this be considered for all proposed mines with new tailings dams going forward.

Ms. Tracy James, Project Assessment Manager at EAO will work with you to address questions you may have about the expectations for alternative means assessments.

Sincerely,

Doug Caul
Associate Deputy Minister