VOISEY'S BAY - SIGNING OF MULTI-PARTY AGREEMENT LEADS TO
APPOINTMENT OF JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PANEL
Ottawa -- January 31, 1997 The governments of Canada and of Newfoundland
and Labrador and the presidents of the Labrador Inuit Association and of
the Innu Nation announced today the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for the establishment of a joint environmental
assessment review of the proposed Voisey's Bay mining development.
The MOU will ensure appropriate harmonization of the environmental
assessment processes of the two governments. The MOU was signed on behalf
of the Government of Canada by Minister of the Environment Sergio Marchi
and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Fred Mifflin. Signing for the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were Premier Brian Tobin as
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Kevin Aylward, Minister of
Environment and Labour. Peter Penashue signed on behalf of the Innu Nation
and William Barbour on behalf of the Labrador Inuit Association.
"The harmonized process will ensure an efficient, effective and fair
evaluation, one in which all interested individuals and groups will have an
equal opportunity to express their views and concerns about the project,"
said Mr. Marchi.
"I am pleased that the Agreement has been signed and that the assessment
review can now proceed," Mr. Mifflin said. "The Agreement and the
subsequent review will ensure the meaningful participation by anyone
interested in the Voisey's Bay project."
"By signing a multi-party MOU, we will avoid costly overlap and duplication
and assure a timely review of the project," federal Natural Resources
Minister Anne McLellan said.
Premier Tobin stated, "I am very pleased with this cooperative approach to
environmental assessment. I look forward to the results of the review
process established through the four-party agreement."
"The Voisey's Bay project will be subject to a full and thorough review
before decisions are made on whether or not to proceed," Minister Aylward
said. "I am confident that the panel will do an excellent job in this
respect and I encourage people to participate in the review process."
"This MOU", said Mr. Penashue, "is an important step for the Innu people.
We worked hard to get this agreement with the other governments and I am
confident that the environmental review will be thorough and complete."
"This is a fair and balanced MOU," said Mr. Barbour. "It reflects the way
that the Voisey's Bay project can respect the Inuit and be a win-win for
everybody."
The MOU led immediately to the appointment of a five-member panel: Ms.
Leslie Griffiths (Chair), Mr. Sam Metcalfe, Ms. Lorraine A. Michael, Dr.
Charles Pelley and Dr. Peter Usher.
Two backgrounders are attached: biographical notes on the panel members
and the project description and the factors to be considered by the review
panel.
The MOU, which includes the panel's terms of reference, is available on the
Internet site of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
(http://www.ceaa.gc.ca). A printed version is also available on request.
-30-
For further information:
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Gordon Harris
Sr. Communications Advisor
Tel. 819-953-1856
Fax. 819-953-2891
Internet e-mail: harrisg@fox.nstn.ca
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Premier's Office
Ms. Cathy Dornan
Director of Communications
(709) 729-3564
Department of Environment and Labour
Mr. Sean Kelly
Director of Communications
(709) 729-2575
MEDIA BACKGROUNDER 1
Voisey's Bay Mine-Mill Project Joint Environmental Assessment Panel
Biographical Notes On Panel Members
Ms. Leslie Griffiths (Chair) Ms. Griffiths brings to the panel conflict
resolution and strong interpersonal skills. She is a Halifax-based
consultant with a wide experience in community consultation and the
socio-economic aspects of environmental assessment. She was a member of the
joint Canada-Nova Scotia environmental assessment panel which reviewed the
Halifax Harbour Wastewater Management System and has authored many
documents presented to several other panel reviews. Ms. Griffiths holds a
degree in environmental planning from the Nova Scotia College of Art and
Design. She has been responsible for a wide range of planning and
environmental projects in a number of areas, including community economic
development, tourism and recreation planning, community consultation and
consensus building, waste management, air quality management and
environmental impact assessment, among others.
Mr. Sam Metcalfe Mr. Metcalfe is Inuk-born and a resident of the Inuit
community of Nain near the proposed Voisey's Bay mine-mill project. Mr.
Metcalfe brings to the panel a wide experience in both the public and
private sectors. He is a former federal public servant who served as head
of the culture and linguistics division of Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada in Ottawa.
Ms. Lorraine A. Michael Ms. Michael is a Toronto-based leader in the
Canadian social movement with extensive regional, national and
international experience. She is currently Program Coordinator, Women and
Economic Justice for the Ecumenical Coalition for Economic Justice. Ms.
Michael brings to the panel experience in assessing the social impact of
economic development activities in Newfoundland. She holds degrees from
Memorial University, the University of Toronto and Universit? Laval.
Dr. Charles Pelley Dr. Pelley brings to the panel a strong technical
knowledge and a wide experience in mining. He is a Newfoundland-born
geologist and mining engineer and is currently associate professor of
engineering at Queen's University. He served as a member of the federal
environmental assessment panel reviewing the Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan
uranium mine. In positions held with the Iron Ore Company of Canada,
Canada Wide Mines and Asbestos Corporation Limited, he gained considerable
experience in mine planning and operations. Dr. Pelley holds as Ph.D. in
Engineering from McGill University.
Dr. Peter J. Usher Dr. Usher is an Ottawa-based consultant in the field
of social and economic impact assessment, land use and resource management.
He has thirty years of research experience on the Canadian North. He is a
leading authority on social impact assessment, renewable resource
utilization, and management, the economics of subsistence-based communities
and Aboriginal land rights. Dr. Usher holds a Ph.D. in Geography from the
University of British Columbia. He has been a visiting professor at
several Canadian universities.
MEDIA BACKGROUNDER 2
Voisey's Bay Mine-Mill Project Joint Environmental Assessment Panel
Project Description and Factors to be Considered During the Review
1. The Project
Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Ltd. (the proponent) is proposing to develop a
nickel-copper-cobalt mine and mill in the vicinity of a place known to the
Inuit of Labrador as Tasiujatsoak, to the Innu of Labrador as
Kapukuanipant-kauashat, which is also known as Voisey's Bay. The indicated
mineral resource is estimated to be 150 million tonnes. The deposit
consists of three ore bodies known as the Ovoid, the Eastern Deeps, and the
Western Extension. The Ovoid would be mined using open pit techniques.
The Western Extension and Eastern Deeps would be mined by underground
techniques. The ore would be processed to nickel-cobalt and copper
concentrates using conventional milling processes. The concentrates would
be shipped to a smelter off-site.
Location
The proposed mine/mill would be located in northern Labrador, 35 km
Southwest of Nain and 79 km Northwest of Utshimasits (Davis Inlet). The
climate is subarctic with short summers and long winters. The surrounding
terrain is rugged, with elevations ranging to 400 m above sea level. Most
of the undertaking would be located in a sheltered valley connecting
Anaktalak Bay, to the north, with Voisey's Bay to the south. Disposal of
tailings and waste rock would take place in valleys to the east of the
mine. Valleys are largely forested, while upland areas consist
predominantly of barren rock. The area drains to several watersheds which
include watercourses supporting Arctic char and other fish populations.
Components of the Project
The undertaking, through its life cycle, includes:
* open pit and underground mining facilities and operations;
* the construction and operation of storage and deposition areas for waste
rock and overburden;
* mine site roads;
* borrow pits and quarries and their road access;
* an airstrip;
* a concentrator;
* a tailings impoundment area;
* an accommodations and services complex;
* a port site with shipping dock and concentrate storage building;
* maintenance and storage areas including equipment laydown and fuel
storage areas;
* explosives storage and manufacturing facilities; and
* a sewage treatment system, a power supply and distribution system, a
water supply and distribution system, water diversion and drainage
systems and communications system.
The undertaking includes the activities associated with the above
operations and infrastructure such as the transportation of personnel and
supplies and the shipping of concentrates.
Open Pit Mine
The open pit would be mined using conventional methods. The waste rock
would be stored near the open pit, or under a water cover, depending on its
potential to generate acid. An estimated 13.7 million tonnes of overburden
would be removed and stored near the open pit. Approximately 20.5 million
tonnes of non-acid generating waste rock would be stored in surface
facilities. One million tonnes of waste rock is categorized as potentially
acid generating and would be placed under a water cover. Discharge water
from the mineralized waste rock disposal pond may need treatment.
Underground Mine
Underground deposits would be mined by sinking shafts followed by blasting
and load-haul-dump operations. Approximately 15.5 million tonnes of waste
rock from the underground mine would be produced. Fifteen million tonnes
is considered potentially acid generating and would be placed under water
cover; the remaining 0.5 million tonnes would be stored above ground.
Water from the open pit and underground mining sites, as well as drainage
from waste rock and overburden piles would be collected and, if necessary,
treated before discharge.
Transportation and Concentrator
Ore would be transported to the concentrator, and processed into nickel-
cobalt and copper concentrates using crushing, grinding and flotation
processes. The concentrator would be designed based on an initial
production rate of 15,000 tonnes per day of ore. Concentrates would be
trucked to storage facilities at the port site at Anaktalak Bay and
shipped for smelting.
Tailings
The tailings produced during the concentrating process are potentially
acid-generating and would be placed under a permanent water cover to
inhibit acid generation and leaching of metals. The proponent's preferred
tailings basin site is a pond approximately 12 km Northeast of the plant
site. The proponent maintains it has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the tailings associated with the projected mineral resource. Site
development would include perimeter dams, control gates, access roads,
surface water diversion and, if necessary, polishing pond. Decant water
would be reclaimed and recycled, with any excess water treated, if
necessary, before discharge.
Shipping Routes
To date, three shipping routes (northern, eastern and southern) are being
proposed by the proponent for the passage of bulk carriers containing the
concentrate between the outer islands of the Labrador coast and the
proposed port site at Kakiak (Edward's Cove). The proposed northern route
following a portion of "Strathcona Run", the existing shipping route to
Nain, is currently the proponent's preferred. Three shipping season
options are being proposed. Seasonal shipping would consist of shipping
during the ice-free season. Extended shipping would enable shipping to
continue during early ice formation and during ice break-up. Year-round
shipping would involve uninterrupted service throughout the year. The
proponent would prefer to ship concentrate during the greatest number of
months possible, however, because of the importance of ice for winter
travel, habitat and harvesting, the proponent states that it will continue
to consult with local residents and government regulators regarding an
appropriate shipping season.
Employment
Approximately 700 persons would be employed during construction of the
undertaking, and during operations, an estimated 500 persons would be
employed plus additional contract personnel. The expected life of the
undertaking is longer than 20 years and depends on the mineral resource and
production rate. Workers would be transported to the site by air. Living
accommodations would be provided on-site. No town site is planned.
Decommissioning
Upon mine closure, the site would be decommissioned and rehabilitated to
approach pre-development conditions. Progressive decommissioning and
rehabilitation would commence at an early stage during mine development and
would continue throughout the life of the mine until the effective
surrender of any leases by the proponent.
2. Factors to be Considered During Public Review
The review will include consideration of the following factors as they
relate to all phases of the project:
1. Description of the project, including its temporal and spatial
boundaries;
2. Need for the project;
3. Purpose of and rationale for the project;
4. Analysis of alternatives including:
(a) alternatives to the project, and
(b) alternative means of carrying out the project which are
technically and economically feasible and the environmental
effects of any such alternatives;
5. Temporal and spatial boundaries of the study areas;
6. Extent to which biological diversity is affected by the project;
7. Description of the present environment which may reasonably be expected
to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the project, including
adequate baseline characterization;
8. Description of the likely future condition of the environment
within the expected life span of the project, if the project were
not approved;
9. Environmental effects of the project, including the environmental
effects arising from malfunctions, accidents or unplanned events that
may occur in connection with the project;
10. Potential cumulative environmental effects of the project;
11. The significance of the effects as described in items 9 and 10;
12. Proposed mitigation measures that are technically and economically
feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental
effects of the project, including the interaction of these measures
with existing management plans;
13. Proposals for environmental compliance monitoring;
14. Measures to enhance any beneficial environmental effects;
15. Proposals for contingency plans;
16. Residual effects associated with the project and their significance;
17. Need for and requirements of any follow-up program in respect of the
project;
18. Capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly
affected by the project to meet the needs of present and future
generations;
19. Extent of application of the precautionary principle to the project;
20. Comments received by the panel during the review.
Larry Innes Visit the Innu Nation WWW site:
Environmental Advisor http://www.web.net/~innu/
Innu Nation
P.O. Box 119, Sheshatshiu, Labrador, Canada A0P 1M0
phone: (709) 497-8398 email: innuenv@web.net fax: (709) 497-8396
\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=