Giant Mine Remediation Project
Giant Mine Working Group
11 August, 2016 Meeting Summary
FINAL
YELLOWKN#845716 - v1
Giant Mine Remediation Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. HHRA PRESENTATION ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 3. HEALTH STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 4. INTERIM DUST MITIGATION ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 5. SITE UPDATE ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 7. NEXT MEETING ...... 6 8. ACTION ITEMS ...... 7 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
APPENDIX A - MEETING AGENDA ...... APPENDIX B - HEALTH EFFECTS MONITORING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPENDIX C - EVALUATION MATRIX DUST MITIGATION OPTIONS APPENDIX D - DUST MITIGATION CONCORDANCE TABLE
APPENDIX E - CANNORTH HHRA PRESENTATION
YELLOWKN#845716 - v1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Giant Mine Remediation Project (GMRP) Team organized a meeting of the Giant Mine Working Group (GMWG, or simply WG). The meeting was held on the 1st floor of the Greenstone Building in Yellowknife, NT, and was scheduled from 9:00 am to 2:15 pm MT on August 11th, 2016. After approving the agenda, the meeting commenced at 9:05 am, with a break from 10:30 am -10:45 am, a lunch from 1200 pm – 1:05 pm and adjourned at 2:05 pm.
Giant Mine Remediation Project Team Team Member Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Natalie Plato Jane Amphlett (on telephone) Geneva Irwin Sharon Low Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT) Erika Nyyssonen
Public Works and Government Services Canada Brad Overton (PWGSC) Chris Doupe (on telephone) GMRP Interested Party Representative City of Yellowknife Wenyan Yu Health Canada (HC) Luigi Lorusso (on telephone) Alternatives North (AN) Tee Lim Yellowknives Dene First Nation (YKDFN) William Lines North Slave Metis Alliance (NSMA) Shin Shiga Health Canada Asish Mohapatra Department of Fisheries and Oceans Tara Bortoluzzi (on telephone) Other Representative Bill Slater Environmental Consulting Bill Slater (on telephone) Government of Northwest Territories – Health and Peter Workman Social Services Kami Kandola
Canada North Environmental Services Limited Harriet Phillips (CanNorth) Leah Leone
*Notes were taken by Geneva Irwin - GMRP.
1 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
OBJECTIVES The intent of this meeting: • Review previous minutes and action items • Provide updates on activity on site • Discuss Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment and draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for Health Study Advisory Committee
MEETING MATERIALS (PROVIDED IN APPENDICES) • Appendix A: Meeting Agenda • Appendix B: CanNorth Powerpoint
2. HHRA PRESENTATION
The group moved directly into the Risk Assessment presentation by CanNorth (Appendix E). The information presented at the previous meeting was reviewed and CanNorth moved forward to inform the WG of the progress being made. Harriet informed the group that they had completed the data gap analysis, incorporating the information provided by the WG. They reviewed the data, looking at the areas that were discussed and how they would use it within the risk assessment from both a Human Health Assessment perspective and an Ecological Risk Assessment perspective.
Harriet moved on to discuss the data available for the HHRA in terms of Human Exposure Pathways. The two data gaps that were identified were water, soil and sediment datat from Long Lake as well as bioavailability measurements in the soil and the sediments fromthe Giant town site . It was determined that all other data was sufficient for use in the HHRA.
CanNorth explained that in order to provide a more robust statistical sample size, in terms of soil for the evaluation of a Latham island receptor, they would combine the soil samples for Latham Island and Ndilo in the assessment of Latham Island. This was met with some hesitation from William, who preferred that the samples not be combined for the comfort of the YKDFN Membership. It was clarified that the report would consider both areas as receptors separately; it would only be the soil samples that were combined for the Latham Island assessment (they would not be combined for the Ndilo assessment). The WG agreed that combining the samples would be acceptable.
Erika asked what sampling program was used in the 2000 Dettah soil sampling, it was explained that it is old data used in the 2006 Con Minerisk assessment. Harriet also mentioned that a student from Queen’s University has been doing some work and it may be possible to have 2 more samples from the Dettah area. Asish asked for confirmation that these samples would be total arsenic and not speciated arsenic.
In terms of fish data, Harriet confirmed there is a large sampling and CanNorth believed there was adequate data for the study. Shin asked to confirm whether or not we know the fish move back and forth between Yellowknife river and
2 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
Horseshoe Bay, Harriet indicated that there was no way to discern this but that arsenic levels in the river are lower than those in the Bay and that there is some speciation in the samples.
.
Kami asked if they would be providing information on the frequency of consumption of fish in terms of toxicity. Harriet clarified that this risk assessment will not make recommendations on consumption of fish etc, rather it will be looking at all the pathways to determine the incremental risk associated with the Giant project for people who eat fish, garden produce, etc. The speciation would be used to determine the toxic form of arsenic in the fish which would be used in their risk assessment calculations. Bill Slater asked where the Background fish Samples would be coming from – Harriet responded that they would be coming from Horseshoe Island and Yellowknife River.
William asked if CanNorth planned on getting any more data on trout, Harriet confirmed they were open to obtaining additional trout samples and taking it into consideration in order to make the YKDFN more comfortable.
Can North moved on to discuss Bioaccessibility and Bioavailability which they defined as the amount of arsenic in the various media that has been sampled is available for uptake of the body. There have been a fair amount of studies done on several different media but there was a lack of data for the Giant Town Site and Long Lake. Jane confirmed there would be sampling done along the shoreline of the Town Site
The discussion moved on to slide 12 of appendix E which discussed other data availability and whether or not there was adequate information. They believed the air data was sufficient but did not have any data for house dust but would be able to use the assumption that house dust is comprised of 30% soil. Garden Produce data from 2001 could be used for the study as CanNorth believed it to still be accurate and as a general rule, imported soil was often used. Kami pointed out that the depth of planting would make an impact as raised beds were generally used in gardens. CanNorth asked the group whether they believe that Garden Produce should be used as a potential pathway given these considerations and that the Giant project is unlikely contributing to Garden produce as a source of Arsenic and have no effect on soil or vegetable concentrations.
Leah went on to discuss background concentrations and what is considered to be appropriate, which is outlined on slide 13 of the presentation. While discussing which statistics should be used to describe the background data. Luigi from Health Canadacommented that it is a good idea to look at many different options for defining background to compare and come up with one number to use that all are comfortable with. Leah discussed the background soils information available from the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and indicated that if the 2000 data was used that the background arsenic concentrations were 150 mg/kg; however, these data considered samples that were on the Giant Mine site and in and around the City of Yellowknife. (slide 15). If these data were removed and other data from the GSC considered (1991 and 2001), then the background arsenic concentration would be around 70 mg/kg. Erika will be discussing the issue with senior management and the group will discuss the matter, as it may affect the current GNWT guidelines. Harriet said that she would send the spreadsheets with the background soil calculations to Erika and INAC. The group decided to revisit this issue after taking some time to think it over.
3 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
CanNorth went on to discuss recommendations for the HHERA. Harriet explained that they would like to get some additional bioaccessibility data of the Town site and the shoreline and that it is ongoing. They would like to collect surface water, soils and sediment data from Long Lake, looking at metals and bioaccessibility of arsenic. She discussed that a Queens University student had collected water and sediment samples from the Long Lake area in the spring. They would also like to get voluntary samples of game, berries, etc. Shin mentioned that NSMA has some available samples in the freezer.
After a short break, the group reconvened to discuss feedback received from the GMAC meeting. Harriet covered the different types of wild plants and animals generally consumed and the samples CanNorth would be searching for, hopefully collecting them by fall so that the analyses would be completed by the end of the year. Shin suggested contacting Wildlife services for data in the Dettah area. Natalie pointed out that non-aboriginal people in the Yellowknife area often consume more traditional food than those in a larger southern city. Erika mentioned that a student is doing work with the Toxic Legacies project conducting interviews with YKDFN about land use. GNWT had touched base with this student and are hoping to be granted access to the study. Jane mentioned that there will also be a deer mice study taking place on site in early September to fill gaps for the Ecological Risk Assessment. Natalie asked that trout be added to the voluntary sampling program.
Harriet wanted to inform the group that they would be conducting an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) to build on the one conducted in 2006. The availability of data was discussed; CanNorth believes there is adequate data for the majority of pathways. CanNorth recommended that more vegetation and deer mice be collected from site.
Leah went on to discuss receptors that would be included in the ERA. She mentioned they would like to focus mostly on smaller mammals as they give a better idea of bio magnification up the food chain and do not cover as large an area as the large mammals would. CanNorth will be splitting the mine site into 4 different areas in order to ensure sampling is not focused on hot spots.
As far as next steps, Leah covered a proposed schedule (slide 32, 33) which included several more consultations over the next year. CanNorth would like to add in a consultation in the beginning of December to discuss approaches to future concentrations if the WG finds it important. Jane asked for an HHRA consultation to be tentatively added to the October and December WG agendas, although with the health study and SDE upcoming in the fall, time may be limited. Shin would like to see a schedule lined up, combine with other non-HHRA related engagements associated with the Giant Mine Project.
3. HEALTH STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
After a lunch break, Jane discussed the upcoming Health Study, led by Dr. Laurie Chan. She asked that YKDFN, NSMA, Health Canada and the City of YK appoint someone to sit on the committee beginning as early as September. The names
4 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
being put forward for the committee should have local health expertise and local knowledge to assist with the study. Likely, the tenure will be years and will require a minimum of 2 face-to-face meetings per year. Natalie confirmed that costs would be covered for those groups that already have contribution agreements in place.
Erika thought it may be a good idea to allow more than one representative from the GNWT Health departments in order to maximize the health expertise on the committee, this was agreed upon by the group, although only in a “back-up” capacity. Erika mentioned that Kami would like to sit on the committee, as well as Laura from GNWT.
Shin asked if NSMA could appoint a health professional who is not a member to sit on the committee on their behalf. Jane responded that the intent is to have medical expertise, as well as community knowledge (such as those from aboriginal groups) and that would be the main focus. If there are gaps in knowledge in the group, it may be a good idea to appoint someone in order to fill those gaps. Jane proposed a kick-off meeting with Dr. Chan in September and to finalize the committee at that point.
It was also noted that GMOB are not currently included in the draft TOR for the Advisory Committee, however the project will check with them on if and how they would like to participate.
With no additional comments, Natalie asked that the WG send comments and names for the committee via Email.
4. INTERIM DUST MITIGATION
Natalie tabled the final wrap up of the dust mitigation program. GMRP has decided to use EnviroTack as the new dust suppression method. The group will be reporting on application and updates through WG. The product has been ordered and will be applied in the upcoming weeks.
Brad confirmed that there were 50 barrels of soil sement to be used up, so they would be placing a small order of EnviroTack for use this year and a large order in Spring 2017 as it is not to be stored in cold climates.
5. SITE UPDATE
Natalie Listed the following items that had been taking place on site: • Water treatment plant is operating 24 hours doing regular water sampling and treated water and is still discharging into Baker Creek • Continuing maintenance and hygiene improvements to the underground refuge stations • Painting fuel tanks and general repairs • Cleaning underground refuge stations • Surface diamond drillers are doing void monitoring investigation • Electrical upgrades on 3 transformers • RTL and EnviroVac are beginning demolition on A-shaft, Headframe, Assay lab and Curling Rink
5 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
• Golder doing soil sampling on site • Preparing for deer mice study. • Erika also pointed out that the University of Ottawa would be doing some filming at Pocket Lake on site.
6. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
ACTION ITEMS FROM JULY 14, 2016 MEETING
Natalie ran through the status of action items declared at the previous meeting.
1. Final Soil Assessment Report Status: Bring Forward In final stages, hopefully available by September 13.
2. Natalie to look into security Assessment being shared with the WG Status: Bring Forward Will be shared when it is available – March 2017
3. Erika to provide CanNorth with Information for HHRA Status: Complete
4. GMRP to brief the WSCC on the HHRA in one of their regular meetings Status: Make note, remove from Action Items.
5. William to get in touch with Randy Freeman (traditional knowledge) Status: Complete Randy is preparing studies to be sent over and Alex Power is also looking into studies.
6. Jane to Confirm that project has all recent items from Chetalat Status: Complete
7. UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next meeting of the Working Group is planned for September 13, 2016 at 9:00 am on the 2nd floor Boardroom of the Greenstone Building in order to accommodate Dr. Laure Chan
8. ACTION ITEMS
Action Item
6 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
1. Check with Northland Utilities regarding Easement with respect to the Niven Air Station.
2. WG to send comments and suggestions for Health Effects Monitoring Program Advisory Committee (HEMPAC) representatives.
3. Project send list of all studies/reports on and off site compiled as a result of the Gap Analysis to the Working Group.
4. Project Team inform Working Group if and how GMOB will be participating.
5. CanNorth provide background soil arsenic calculations to INAC and GNWT.
6. Project Team provide revised engagement schedule (including HHRA sessions) to the Working Group.
7. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
Date Topic
September 2016 • Water Treatment Plant – Outfall Location • Dr.Laurie Chan - Health Study October • HHRA Dietary Survey Consultation
November •
December • HHRA Future Concentrations Consultation
7 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
APPENDIX A- MEETING AGENDA
Agenda
Description Giant Mine Remediation Project Working Group Meeting
Place Greenstone Building 1st Floor
Date Thursday August 11 @ 9 – 2:15 pm
Organizer Erika Nyyssonen Telephone No. 1-866-885-0884 #1715
Participants
William Lines Yellowknives Dene First Nation (YKDFN) Wenyan Yu City of Yellowknife (City) Gordon Hamre Alternatives North (AN) Tee Lim Alternatives North (AN) Shin Shiga North Slave Metis Alliance (NSMA) Thomsen D’hont North Slave Metis Alliance (NSMA) Sharon Low Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Bill Slater Technical Advisor (phone) Erika Nyyssonen Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT) Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Jane Amphlett (phone) Natalie Plato Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)
8 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
Public Works and Government Services Canada Linda Pickett (PWGSC) Tara Bortoluzzi Department of Fisheries and Oceans (phone) Asish Mohapatra Health Canada (HC) Jody Small Environment Canada Ben Nind Giant Mine Oversight Board (GMOB) Secretary: Geneva Irwin Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Harriet Phillips CanNorth
SCHEDULE
TIME AGENDA ITEM Lead 9:00 Introductions and Approval of Agenda Natalie 9:10 HHRA Presentation Harriet Phillips 10:30 Break 10:45 HHRA Presentation (con’t) 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Health Study Terms of Reference Advisory Committee Jane 1:30 Interim Dust Mitigation Natalie 1:45 Site Update Natalie 2:00 Minutes and Action Items Natalie 2:15 Meeting adjourned
9 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
APPENDIX B- HEALTH EFFECTS MONITORING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE O Giant Mine Remediation Project (GMRP) Health Effects Monitoring Program Advisory Committee (HEMPAC) Terms of Reference
DRAFT June 30, 2016 Background
The Giant Mine Remediation Project Team is currently conducting a long-term remediation project at the Giant Mine site in Yellowknife, NT. The project was approved by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board subject to 26 measures aimed at preventing significant adverse impacts on the environment and to mitigate public concern.
Measure #9 states: The Developer will work with other federal and territorial departments as necessary to design and implement a broad health effects monitoring program in Ndilo, Dettah and Yellowknife focusing on arsenic and any other contaminants in people which might result from this Project. This will include studies of baseline health effects of these contaminants and ongoing periodic monitoring.
Dr. Laurie Chan of the University of Ottawa has been contracted to be the Principal Investigator (PI) of the Health Effects Monitoring Program (HEMP) and will work closely with the Advisory Committee.
Mandate
To provide advice and make recommendations to the Principal Investigator and Project Team in the development and implementation of the HEMP by utilizing expertise and knowledge of regional and community level issues.
Membership
Membership of the HEMPAC will consist of one representative from: 1) INAC 2) GNWT – Environment and Natural Resources
10 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
3) GNWT - Department of Health 4) Chief Public Health Officer - NWT 5) Health Canada 6) City of Yellowknife 7) Yellowknives Dene First Nation 8) North Slave Metis Alliance
Membership shall continue until the HEMPAC member is no longer employed in their respective position, in which case replacement of any member of the HEMPAC shall be the responsibility of the participating department and organizations. Additional divisional and external expertise can be added to the group, as may be required, to address specific issues or concerns, upon the approval of GMRP. In an effort to reduce knowledge gaps as a result of staff turnover, temporary absences, and workload, each member is to identify a secondary contact/knowledge expert. In the event one member cannot attend a meeting where all others have confirmed, attendance by the secondary contact if the preferred option before rescheduling is considered.
Chair
The HEMPAC will be chaired by the INAC representative. The INAC rep will provide a communication link between the HEMPAC, the Principal Investigator and the GMRP Team. The INAC rep will plan meeting agendas, preside over the meetings, and coordinate activities of the HEMPAC. The Chair is a full member of the HEMPAC.
Responsibilities
Specific responsibilities of the Advisory Committee include but are not limited to: • Provide technical expertise for the development of the HEMP • Oversee the implementation of the HEMP • Provide advice on best practices and policies to ensure proper implementation of health study • Provide advice on the development of policies for collection, use and disclosure of personal health information
Tenure
Members are appointed for a term of 5 years. The term can be renewable upon mutual agreement.
11 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1
The Committee will exist until the work of the Committee is completed or may be dissolved sooner by consensus.
Recommendations
Recommendations to the Principal Investigator and GMRP will be made by consensus.
Meetings
Meetings shall be held at times convenient for a majority of members. An attempt will be made to schedule at least two face-to-face meeting per year at a time and place convenient for all members.
All members will have the responsibility for reporting HBSAC activities and discussions back to their respective organizations.
Secretariat Support
The GMRP team will provide secretariat support by coordinating meetings, drafting records of decisions, coordinating meeting agendas, etc.
Costs
Costs associated with HBSAC activities, including travel, meetings, and technical review, will be the responsibility of the respective organizations.
APPENDIX C – EVALUATION MATRIX DUST MITIGATION OPTION
APPENDIX D – DUST MITIGATION CONCORDANCE TABLE
APPENDIX E – CANNORTH HHRA PRESENTATION
12 | Page
YELLOWKN#852858 - v3
YELLOWKN#854513 - v1 2.6.1.1 - Interim Dust Management Options Assessment Options Evaluation Matrix
Sources: RWDI Air Inc. Final Fugitive Dust Assessment Report (04 MAY 2016) Correspondence with Paul Goulet, ENSS (re: ENTAC) Correspondence with Barry Henkel, RTL (re: Altacrete) Correspondence with Justin Vermillon, EP&A (re: Envirotac II).
Assumptions: Costing is based on an assumed tailings dry beach area of 70 ha (173 ac). Where installation/application costs are unknown, it is assumed that installation costs represents 20% of the material costs. In the case of tires, an assumed installation cost of $140,000 is assumed. This is based on 2 workers @ $50/hr requiring 8 hrs per acre (1 acres/day) ~ $2,000/ha. Solution is for a 10-year time frame / costing is over a 10-year period. Requirement of minimum 75% dust emission reduction. Costs are in CDN dollars. Where source info is in US dollars, an assumed exchange rate of $1.25 CDN:$1.00 US is applied. Although some cost estimates are of higher quality than others, all costs are indicative only. At the request of Alternatives North, tailings paste is not to be considered a valid dust mitigation solution.
Evaluation: Five broad evaluation criteria are being considered: 1. Effort, with a relative importance (weight) of 10. 2. Ease of removal, with a relative importance of 10. Note that thin crusts are not considered as requiring removal and so are awarded a maximum number of points. 3. Ease of repurposing, with a relative importance of 5. Note that this has to do mostly with the effort/cost required to remove the material. Options for which repurposing is not possible but for which material does not have to be removed in order to access the underlying tailings are awarded a maximum of points. 4. Cost, with a relative importance of 35. Ratings: Low cost is assigned a value of 10; high cost is assigned a value of 1; and all costs in between are assigned a relative value between 1 and 10 through interpolation. 5. Reliability / Confidence, with a relative importance of 40. Ratings are on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 indicates the option does not meet the criterion at all and 10 means the option fully meets it. Overall Rank: 1 is best, 2 is second best, etc…
Application/Maintenance Effort Ease of Removal Ease of Repurposing Cost Reliability/Confidence (weighting factor: 10) (weighting Factor 10) (weighting factor: 5) (weighting factor: 35) (weighting factor: 40) Overall Score Overall Rank Ease of Re- Installation/ Reliability/ Reapplication Maintenance Ease of Option Mechanism Effort Rating Ease of removal and Rationale Ease of repurposing and Rationale purposing Material Costs Application Total Cost Cost Rating Avantages Risks / Disadvantages Unknowns Confidence Frequency Requirements Removal Rating Rating Costs Rating
Cannot be Can only apply > 5 °C repurposed. N/A - Need to Cost-effective No known unknowns. Low level of Easy to remove Past exceedances (mid to Chemical Dust Minimal once Thin layer. No need to simply reapply Known entity that has ' Application costs Soil Sement effort, Annual 6 with earthworks 10 10 $1,137,500 $227,500 $1,365,000 9 late May) 1 593 8 Suppressant applied Fragile. remove the over disturbed been proven to work once assumed to be 20% of (x10) equipment. Unknown if could affect material to areas. applied material costs. quality of paste access tailings.
Widely used across Cannot be Canada Impact of freeze-thaw repurposed. N/A - Need to Low level of Easy to remove Similar application to Soil Can only apply > 5 °C cycles on product Chemical Dust Minimal once Thin layer. No need to simply reapply ENTAC effort, Annual 6 with earthworks 10 10 $4,013,287 $1,650,667 $5,663,953 4 Sement Unknown if could affect effectiveness is reported to 5 550 10 Suppressant applied Fragile. remove the over disturbed (x10) equipment. Heavier application quality of paste be minimal (but is material to areas. reported by vendor to unknown). access tailings. sustain freeze/thaw cycles
Cost-effective Impact of freeze-thaw Similar application to Soil Cannot be cycles on product Sement Low level of Thin layer. Less repurposed. N/A - Need to effectiveness is reported to Easy to remove Heavier application Can only apply > 5 °C Chemical Dust effort, Every 3 Minimal once fragile than Soil No need to simply reapply be minimal (but is EcoAnchor 10 with earthworks 10 10 $1,155,000 $231,000 $1,386,000 9 reported by vendor to Unknown if could affect 6 807 3 Suppressant years applied Sement or remove the over disturbed unknown). equipment. sustain freeze/thaw cycles quality of paste (x4) ENTAC. material to areas. ' Application costs Reportedly more robust access tailings. assumed to be 20% of than Soil Sement or material costs. ENTAC.
Cost estimate from EP&A includes manuafcturer's oversight during first application. Cost-effective Cannot be Low level of Similar application to Soil Envirotac II Thin layer. Less repurposed. N/A - Need to effort, 4 Easy to remove Sement ' Application costs Chemical Dust Minimal once fragile than Soil No need to simply reapply Unknown if could affect applications over 10 with earthworks 10 10 $835,015 $107,260 $942,275 9 Sustains freeze/thaw assumed to be 20% of 6 826 1 (formerly known as Suppressant applied Sement or remove the over disturbed quality of paste 10 years equipment. cycles material costs. Rhino Snot) ENTAC. material to areas. (x4) Reportedly more robust access tailings. than Soil Sement or ENTAC. Use of a dye to control application and to visually monitor crust wear.
Relatively well-known entity for underground Impact of freeze-thaw backfill; not for surface dust Moderately easy Existing site experience cycles on product High level of Thin layer. suppression Physical Minimal once to remove with Cannot be and equipment effectiveness is unknown. Tailings Paste effort, Once 3 Relatively 6 0 $1,960,000 $392,000 $2,352,000 8 Uncertainty as to long- 5 571 9 Covering applied earthworks repurposed. Maximizes use of on site ' Application costs (x1) robust. term efficacy / resiliency in equipment. materials (no introduction of assumed to be 20% of Tailings paste is not being considered as a valid option - based on environmental conditions new chemicals, etc.) material costs. recommendations from Alternatives North. Means of application untested on site
Actual granular cover thickness required to provide adequate anchoring Geotextile requires and UV protection could be Would get High confidence level in Very high level Gravel over anchoring and protection greater than 1". (Cost could Physical Minimal once Difficult to Difficult to severely option's performance - Geotextile of effort, Once 1 fragile 1 1 $573,417 $2,867,083 $3,440,500 6 from UV exposure - be greater.) 10 635 6 Covering applied remove. repurpose. damaged during proven effective on many (x1) membrane. minimum 1" of gravel is ' Material and installation / removal. sites. necessary to achieve this. application costs derived from total cost based on assumed installation cost @ 20% material cost.
Renders surface impermeable - impacts on mine water balance and on dam stability are unknown. ' Impact of freeze-thaw Moderately Widely used in Europe cycles on product High level of difficult to 6" layer. Very Physical Cannot be and in North America. effectiveness is reported to Altacrete effort, Once None 3 remove with robust 5 0 $7,962,500 $1,592,500 $9,555,000 1 10 470 11 Covering repurposed. High confidence level in be minimal (but is (x1) earthworks (concrete). option's performance unknown). equipment. ' Material and installation / application costs derived from total cost based on assumed installation cost @ 20% material cost.
High confidence level in Relatively fine Only coarser Blasting and crushing option's performance - granular material fraction of required to generate Moderately easy proven effective on site may be difficult material would material to repurpose as (Roaster area cap). High level of Easy to remove to separate from be available for Material needs to be Physical Minimal once it may need to On site experience and Gravel (2" thick) effort, Once 3 with earthworks fine tailings 8 repurposing (i.e. 4 $1,050,000 $525,000 $1,575,000 8 placed fairly evenly ~5 cm 10 819 2 Covering applied be screened equipment required to (x1) equipment. underneath. would lose ~1/2 deep – logistics of (maybe wet- generate material 100% material during application may require screened). Stone can be incorporated separation is not removal & more material than into long-term closure plan / achievable. repurposing). estimated capping material
Granular material is quite High confidence level in coarser than Blasting required to option's performance - underlying generate material similar to 2" of gravel. tailings. Front- Easy to Assumed greater volume High level of Easy to remove On site experience and Physical end loader with repurpose required than technically Cobbles (6" thick) effort, Once None 3 with earthworks 8 8 $3,202,500 $1,601,250 $4,803,750 5 equipment required to 10 702 5 Covering modified bucket because easy to necessary due logistics as (x1) equipment. generate material (tines) may be screen. easier to cover a surface Stone can be incorporated sufficient to than space out cobbles 75 into long-term closure plan / remove and cm apart capping material separate material.
Installation costs are Existing materials on site assumed. Insufficient tires available May be picked Re-use of on site waste Assessment of Non-erodible Low level of Easy to on site (even adding those Easy to remove up by hand or Can be used in smaller performance based on Tires Roughness effort, Once None 10 8 repurpose (by 10 $0 $140,000 $140,000 10 from municipal landfill) 5 805 4 (by hand). using small areas where more local theory, studies and Element (x1) hand). Typical truck tire provides machinery. protection is required (e.g., publications, not on side- protection for ~9.5 m2 excavation area of CTP) scale, industrial applications.
Time consuming / manual Cost-effective Can be installation but no heavy Snow Fence Some damage May result in greater snow Although posts used in smaller areas machinery required to posts / accumulation on the tailings Moderate level Moderately are easy to drive where more local protection Effective for a narrow (assume a zig-zag Regular, fencing surfaces - impacts on mine Wind Speed of effort, Every 3 difficult to down by hand, Relatively easy is required (excavation area range of wind directions pattern = some ongoing 3 5 expected to 6 $1,417,500 $283,500 $1,701,000 8 water balance and on dam 5 619 7 Reduction years remove posts machinery would to repurpose. of CTP) Geotechnical constraints effectiveness in maintenance occur during stability are unknown. (x4) and fencing. be required to Can extend the snow for fencepost installation in most wind removal / Installation costs assumed pull them out. cover period and increase tailings unknown directions) repurposing. to be 20% of material costs. surface moisture content Longevity / maintenance needs of fencing unknown
NCR#8878102 - v2 Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) Comment Comment Source Comment Response Number Was any consideration given to wind differences between The limitations of making use of wind data from the Yellowknife airport in modeling the Alternatives North the Giant site and the Airport, and the impact those site conditions have been recognized. The alternating onshore and offshore breezes 1 (Erica Janes) differences may have in designing the most effective dust reported during summer will be considered during detailed design of the selected control solution for the Giant site? option(s). We would like to see full cost estimates (product and RWDI Air Inc.'s scope included the following item: installation) included in Canadian dollars, for each option analyzed in the table. "1.2 Provide a report outlining recommended solution(s) including order of magnitude costing for the recommended solutions along with an implementation schedule for the potential options. Where there are multiple solutions, present these solutions in a matrix format allowing side by side comparison. "
Alternatives North The preparation of full cost estimates was not part of the scope of RWDI Air Inc. The 2 (Erica Janes) Project Team will convert all cost estimates into Canadian dollars and will consider the differences between the cost estimates when comparing options and before selecting one (or more) solution(s). The Project Team does not intend to develop full, substantive cost estimates for each option, but rather to inform the selection of the solution(s) on the basis of order of magnitude costing.
We would like to see all unknowns identified within the In developing our options evaluation matrix, the Project Team has attempted to better Options Analysis table, as well as a more detailed define and explain what is meant by ease of removal/repurposing, as well as qualify how Alternatives North 3 explanation of the ‘easy’ and ‘moderately easy’ rankings the rankings were determined. (Erica Janes) for ease of removal/repurposing for each option. In developing our options evaluation matrix, the Project Team has attempted to better identify and list the known unknowns.
NCR#8821252 - v5 Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) We would like to see a geotextile option(s) included as The Project Team will include a geotextile option as part of our final analysis. As part of the options analysis in this study. mentioned by Alternatives North, the "ten-year time horizon is well within the normal service life of premium geotextile when protected from UV". A geotextile would need to be both protected from UV and somehow anchored down for it to perform during 10 years. Assuming that 1" of gravel cover will be sufficient to adequately anchor the geotextile and protect it from UV radiation, preliminary numbers are as follows:
70 ha geotextile @ $37.9K/ha = $2,653,000 1. Alternatives North 4 2. (Erica Janes) 70 ha 1" thickness of gravel = $787,500 Total = $3,440,500
Notes: 1. From recent work in support of the SDE process, geotextiles are expected to cost in the range of $37,900/ha, including installation at Giant. (Geotextiles available at Home Depot (recognised to not be of the same quality as what would be needed at Giant) sell for $7,000 to $22,000 per ha, excl. installation - so this figure seems to be in the correct order of magnitude.) There are simply too many unknowns and not enough Noted.2. Half the No cost further of 2" consideration thickness of gravelwill be over given 70 to ha the incl. tailings installation paste - optionfrom Options as a 10-year Analysis time for adequate field testing of this option, given our solution. understanding of the need to implement a 10-year dust Alternatives North control solution this summer, in preparation for 2017 5 (Erica Janes) wind events.
We do not support the inclusion of a tailings paste option at this time. We would like to see additional information regarding • Waste tires are not considered a hazardous or otherwise controlled substance in potential leaching of contaminants from tires included in Canada. the Options Analysis table. • Tires are permitted to be placed on the ground surface anywhere without restriction, even in residential land uses in a potable groundwater setting - like at my house, under Environment my truck, for instance. Canada • Ground tires are used in municipal playgrounds and school yards under play structures. 6 (Amy Sparks) Alternatives North On the above basis, and on the fact that Giant Mine is an industrial site, the Project Team (Erica Janes) will not be pursuing this comment.
NCR#8821252 - v5 Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) with regards to offsite impact, would it be possible to Noted. These considerations would be very important in the context of a human health provide some clarification on transport of dust particles risk assessment. However, they fall outside the scope of the current endeavour, the that are 10 um and less than 2.5 um? objective of which is to mitigate the formation of wind-blown dust at site.
Health Canada Exploring these would also be important from the 7 (Asish Mohapatra) perspective from how far wind-blown dust can travel and Rpt. Page 3 the amount of coarse and fine particulates that could reach surrounding areas of Yellowknife and other communities.
these are key features and potential sources of fugitive Noted. Health Canada dust generation from the mine property and surrounding 8 (Asish Mohapatra) areas Rpt. Page 5
what specific review analysis and results were found from This review fell outside RWDI's scope of work. This resulted in Recommendation No. 4 Health Canada this review related to particulate matter datasets? on Page 17 of the report, which will be considered by the Project Team. 9 (Asish Mohapatra) Rpt. Page 5
What specific information from tailings surface materials Noted. Health Canada and surrounding tailings ponds would be valuable for 10 (Asish Mohapatra) human health risk assessment? For example, range of Rpt. Page 5 arsenic composition of tailings dust and size of the particles of tailings dust and surrounding areas? It would help if the report provides some perspective of Noted. particle sizes and their transport and penetration Health Canada efficiencies; which then would help in understanding 11 (Asish Mohapatra) some exposure potential of these small particles. Rpt. Page 5
very fine particles = less than 2.5 micron or is the author The author was conveying the concept that the finer the particle is, the higher the Health Canada of the report refers to ultrafine particles? emission rate will be. 12 (Asish Mohapatra) Rpt. Page 5
more coarse materials? What particle sizes? is it between The author was conveying the concept that the coarser the particle is, the higher the Health Canada 2.5 to 10 um or greater than > 10 um? wind threshold will be. 13 (Asish Mohapatra) Rpt. Page 5
NCR#8821252 - v5 Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) fine particles less than 2.5 um? The author was conveying the concept that tailings deposited as a slurry, once dry, can Health Canada become a source of fugitive dust. The reference to "fine particles" was made in the 14 (Asish Mohapatra) context of having previously briefly explained wind erosion concepts - see Responses to Rpt. Page 6 Comments 12 and 13. between these four tailings ponds, there are similar Noted. features and some unique features in terms of fugitive Health Canada dust emissions, particle chemistry, sizes and fractionation. 15 (Asish Mohapatra) Rpt. Page 6 Understanding these similar and different features would certainly help in characterizing potential inhalation and dermal exposure scenarios. this information is important and should be considered Noted. Health Canada for exposure characterization (HHRA perspective). 16 (Asish Mohapatra) Rpt. Page 8
potentially different emission rates from different Noted. Health Canada processes that are dependent on wind speed over tailings 17 (Asish Mohapatra) pond surface with different properties of the surface Rpt. Page 8 material. what are the potential issues associated with additional Noted. Health Canada burden of chemicals into the area? Discharge limits need 18 (Asish Mohapatra) to be established Rpt. Page 13
in the air risk assessment component of the project, this Noted. Health Canada range could be incorporated and potentially implications 19 (Asish Mohapatra) associated with 75% fugitive dust emissions reduction Rpt. Page 14 could be further evaluated from a human exposure perspective; over 10 years time frame Health Canada .....provide a sufficient level of control to prevent and Noted. 20 (Asish) manage exposure to particulates Rpt. Page 17 in addition to this recommendation, would it be valuable Noted. Health Canada to refine and further evaluate site specific Risk Based 21 (Asish) Action Levels (RBALs) and other site speific criteria Rpt. Page 17 developed and/or adopted to screen particulates? YKDFN Agreement with Alternatives North's comments on Noted. We believe this references Comment 1 in the present table. 22 (William Lines) baseline data. YKDFN Agreement with Alternatives North's comments on Noted. We believe this references Comment 3 (and, possibly, Comment 5) in the present 23 (William Lines) inconsistencies within the report. table.
NCR#8821252 - v5 Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) YKDFN implores the Project Team to have the technology Noted. YKDFN 24 proven effective to stop the dust before implementation. (William Lines) Particularly if a wind/snow fence is chosen or considered. YKDFN does not want to see something The Project Team agrees with YKDFN. The solution(s) selected for the next ~10 years will YKDFN 25 added/implemented that we cannot remove in the future, not be permanent. (William Lines) such as the 2” gravel cover.
NCR#8821252 - v5 Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/) 8/9/2016
Risk Assessment - Giant Mine Remediation Project August 11, 2016
Canada North Environmental Services Limited
Previous Meeting – July 14, 2016 • Provided a preliminary summary of the data summarized to date • Identified some preliminary thoughts on missing data and how gaps could be filled • Found that there were other data that could fill some of the data gaps • Water quality data from City of Yellowknife • Compost data • CIMP data • Outlined other considerations for the Problem Formulation • What types of receptors to consider • Locations 2 • Dietary survey – indication of a need to update
1 8/9/2016
Progress from Last Meeting • Finished data gap analysis • Incorporated comments from July meeting and data received • Most of the data received • Reviewed data in terms of use within risk assessment • Prepared a Data Gaps Report • Provided recommendations for some 3 additional sampling
What Will be Covered Today
• Findings of the data gaps analysis • Recommendations for sampling program • Development of background concentrations • Voluntary sampling program • Ecological Risk Assessment • Summary and next steps
4
2 8/9/2016
Human Exposure Pathways
5
Data Availability for the HHRA HHRA Receptor Locations Pathways Giant Yellow- Latham Ingraham Long Back- Ndilo Dettah Town Site knife Island Trail Lake ground Surface water - X Sediment - X Sediment bioavailability X - X Fish - - Soil X Soil bioavailability X X Garden produce - - - Wild plants To be determined Large game To be determined Small mammals To be determined Birds To be determined Air 6 House dust Supermarket food - - - - adequate data/assumptions for risk assessment; X – data gap identified; - – not applicable.
3 8/9/2016
Surface Water and Sediment Data
• Yellowknife • Surface water • Recent shore sediment data (top 10 cm) • Ndilo/Latham Island • Surface water • Recent shore sediment data (top 10 cm) • Few samples for Latham Island – should combine with Ndilo • Dettah • Surface water • Recent shore sediment data (top 10 cm) • Giant Town Site • Adequate surface water samples • Adequate sediment samples • Ingraham Trail • Surface water from municipal supply • Long Lake • No water data • Limited sediment data 7 • Queen’s is collecting some data in shore sediments
Soil Data • Yellowknife • Soils (top 10 cm) dated – supplemented with some data from 2014 • Ndilo/Latham Island • Soils – can only use surficial data (top 10 cm) collected in 2012; Stantec 2014 study collected deeper samples (lower concentrations) • Few samples on Latham Island – should combine with Ndilo • Dettah • Soils (top 10 cm) dated – only 7 samples • May be some data from Queen’s study • Giant Town Site • Current program to collect soil and shore sediment samples • Need to collect bioaccessibility data • Ingraham Trail • Soils (top 10 cm) obtained from regional study and mushroom study 8 • Long Lake • Limited data
4 8/9/2016
Fish Data • Back Bay • Data for northern pike from 2012 and 2013 • North Yellowknife Bay • Data for northern pike and lake whitefish from 2012 and 2013 • South Yellowknife Bay • Data for inconnu from 2010 and 2011 • Data for northern pike from 2012 and 2013 • Data for lake whitefish from 2012 and 2013 • Baker Creek and Lower Martin Lake • Data for northern pike and lake whitefish from 2010 to 2013 • Background • Yellowknife River - data for northern pike and lake whitefish from 2011 9 • Horseshoe Island - data for northern pike and lake whitefish from 2012 and 2013
Bioaccessibility/Bioavailability
• Soils • Adequate data for disturbed and undisturbed soils • Lack of data at Giant Town Site and Long Lake • Sediments • Adequate data available for Baker Creek and Upper Baker Creek • Will be applied to sediments in Yellowknife Bay • Fish • Data for Baker Creek, Back Bay, Yellowknife Bay • Lake whitefish, northern pike and inconnu 10 • Speciation data also available and adequate
5 8/9/2016
Arsenic Speciation in Fish
Lake Whitefish - Yellowknife Bay Northern Pike - Yellowknife Bay
Inconnu – Yellowknife Bay
11
Stantec 2014 - Analysis of Contaminants in Tissues of Fish Captured in the Yellowknife Bay Area, NT
Other Data Assumptions
• Air • Community data and fenceline data considered adequate • Dust • No data • Assume concentrations in indoor dust to be 30 % of outdoor soil concentrations • Garden Produce • Data from 2001 considered acceptable to represent current conditions • Arsenic concentrations in compost similar to garden soil concentrations • Supermarket Foods • Will use Health Canada Dietary Survey information • Wild Game • Limited data • Assuming voluntary program will bring in samples • Wild Plants/Berries • Limited data 12 • Assuming voluntary program will bring in samples
6 8/9/2016
Background • Enough data to adequately characterize background in surface water, sediments, and fish • Available from recent sampling programs • Background data available from the Geological Survey of Canada and recent soil sampling programs • GSC data represents the largest dataset • Different statistics used to describe background • Mean • Mean plus 2 standard deviations • Upper 95% Confidence Limit of the mean (UCLM) • 90th percentile th • 95 percentile 13
Background Arsenic Concentrations – Aquatic
Medium/ Mean 95% N N 7 8/9/2016 Background Arsenic Concentrations – Soil Mean 95% Soil (mg/kg) N N GSC Data – Original Problem Formulation: Data from 2000 only, with data for samples from the Giant Mine Site and Yellowknife GSC Data – Revised Location Identification: Data from 2000 only, with data for 5 samples from the Giant Mine Site and 9 samples from Yellowknife removed GSC Data – Additional Data: Data from 1999 (N=61), 2000 (N=67), and 2001 (N=13), for samples from outside of the Giant Mine Site and Yellowknife 15 GSC Data and Recent Sampling: GSC data from 1999 to 2001, plus an additional 1 sample collected in 2013 (Stantec 2014), 11 samples collected in 2014 (Stevens 2015), and 1 sample collected in 2015 (Golder 2016) Recommendations for HHERA • Determine arsenic bioaccessibility of soils and sediments from the Giant Town Site and Shoreline Lands sampling program • Collect surface water, sediment, and soils data for Long Lake • Metals suite • Bioaccessibility of arsenic in soils and sediments • Obtain data for samples of wild plants (berries, medicinal tea) and wildlife (large game, small mammals, and birds) from YKDFN • Metals suite 16 8 8/9/2016 Feedback from GMAC Meeting • Fish collected outside Dettah • Consume whitefish, trout, and inconnu • Large game • 20 km away from Yellowknife • Duck Lake area • Rabbits • 2 to 3 km from Giant Mine • Spruce gum and Birch sap • Dettah Road • Berries • 20 km away from Yellowknife 17 Voluntary Sampling Program • 5-10 large game samples (ideally moose or bison) • 5 large game organs (livers/kidneys/heart of same species preferably) • 5 small game (rabbit) from where they are caught now as well as around the Giant Mine • 5 upland bird samples, ideally all the same species • 5 duck samples, ideally all the same species (mallard, black duck, other) • 5 Canada goose samples • 5 blueberry fruit samples • 5 other berry fruit samples such as Saskatoon or cranberry collected from Latham Island, Ndilo, and Dettah, as well as commonly harvested areas • 5 rat root samples (if possible) • 5 other medicinal plants such as Labrador tea or other (ideally 18 vegetation rather than a root species) 9 8/9/2016 Where do You Hunt, Trap and Gather? 19 Ecological Risk Assessment • Build on the 2006 Ecological Risk Assessment • Focus of the Ecological Risk Assessment • Aquatic • Baker Creek – on site • Back Bay, North Yellowknife Bay, South Yellowknife Bay – off site • Terrestrial • Giant Mine Site – on site 20 10 8/9/2016 Ecological Receptor Pathways Benthic invertebrates Aquatic vegetation 21 Also sediment, soil, and water ingestion Data Availability for the ERA ERA Receptor Locations Pathways Giant Mine Site / Yellowknife Bay Background Baker Creek Surface water Sediment Fish Benthic invertebrates Zooplankton - Aquatic plants X X (Back Bay) X Soil - Wild plants X - - Wild plants bioaccessibility X - - Small mammals X - - 22 - adequate data/assumptions for risk assessment; X – data gap identified; - – not applicable. 11 8/9/2016 Surface Water and Sediment Data • Baker Creek and Upper Baker Creek Watershed • Surface water • Sediment data (top 10 cm) • North Yellowknife Bay • Surface water • Sediment data (top 10 cm) both off-shore and near shore • South Yellowknife Bay • Surface water • Sediment data (top 10 cm) both off-shore and near shore 23 Fish Data • Back Bay • Data for slimy sculpin from 2012 and 2013 • North Yellowknife Bay • Data for slimy sculpin from 2013 • South Yellowknife Bay • Data for slimy sculpin from 2013 • Baker Creek • Data for arctic grayling, ninespine stickleback and slimy sculpin from 2010 to 2012 • Background • Yellowknife River • Data for ninespine stickleback and slimy sculpin from 2010 to 2012 • Horseshoe Island • Data for slimy sculpin from 2013 24 12 8/9/2016 Other Data • Aquatic • Benthic invertebrates • Baker Creek, Upper Baker Creek, North Yellowknife Bay, south Yellowknife Bay, Background (river and lake) • Zooplankton • Baker Creek, Upper Baker Creek, North Yellowknife Bay, south Yellowknife Bay, Background (river and lake) • Aquatic Plants • Limited • Terrestrial (land) • Soils • Adequate data from disturbed and undisturbed areas of Giant Mine Site • Terrestrial Plants • Limited Small Mammals • 25 • Limited Bioaccessibility/Bioavailability • Soils • Adequate data for disturbed and undisturbed soils • Sediments • Adequate data available for Baker Creek and Upper Baker Creek • Will be applied to sediments in Yellowknife Bay • Fish • No data • Will assume 100% bioavailability 26 13 8/9/2016 Recommendations for ERA • Collect vegetation data (browse and forage) • Disturbed and undisturbed areas of the Giant Mine site • Metals suite and moisture • analyze arsenic bioaccessibility • collect co-located soil samples • Collect deer mice • From disturbed and undisturbed areas of Giant Mine site • Metals suite 27 Ecological Receptors • Receptors included in 2006 ERA • Aquatic: fish, benthic invertebrates, fish • Terrestrial: birds (grouse), ducks, small mammals (hare), large mammals (bear, caribou, moose), predators (wolf), aquatic (muskrat, mink) • Receptors to consider in this ERA • Focus on animals with small home ranges • Aquatic: fish, benthic invertebrates, fish • Terrestrial: birds (grouse), waterfowl (mallard, merganser, scaup), small mammals (hare, deer mouse), predators (fox, wolf) • Semi-aquatic: muskrat 28 • Species at risk 14 8/9/2016 Receptor Locations Giant Mine Site Terrestrial Animals: 1. North Giant Mine Site 2. East Baker Creek 3. West Baker Creek 4. South Giant Mine Site near Baker Creek Outlet Upper Baker Creek Waterfowl 1. Baker Creek 2. Baker Creek Outlet 3. Upper Baker Creek Semi-Aquatic Mammals 1. Along Baker Creek 29 Baker Creek Outlet Ecological Receptor Characteristics • Environment Canada Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance • Module C: Standardization of Wildlife Receptor Characteristics • Characteristics for 23 receptors • Body weight, food types and amounts, total amount of food consumed, water ingestion rate, soil/sediment ingestion rate 30 15 8/9/2016 Summary and Next Steps • Data gaps analysis completed • Determination of field studies for August and September • Updating the HHRA and ERA Problem Formulation 31 2016 Activities: Building Foundation for the HHERA Others Input 2 Input 1 - Voluntary sampling Input 3 Input 4 of large and small - Analytical results - Locations for - Group inputs to game, and plants from field program hunting, gathering, update dietary and voluntary fishing survey sampling June July October Start August Sept Nov Dec Data Gaps Data Gaps Field Program Field Program HHERA Inputs HHERA Inputs HHERA Inputs Deliverable 2 Consultation 1 Deliverable 1 - Updated HH Problem - Risk assessment - Data Gaps Report Formulation process - ERA Problem Formulation - Summary of initial data gaps Consultation 2 Consultation 3 Consultation 4? - Final data gaps - Discussions on - Dietary survey - Voluntary sampling approach to future - Problem formulation 32 - ERA considerations concentrations - Screening of COPC CanNorth Where we are currently 16 8/9/2016 2017 Activities: Completing the HHERA Others Input 5 Input 6 - Feedback on - Review comments approach on draft HHERA Jan Feb March April May June July August Conduct HHERA Conduct HHERA Conduct HHERA HHERA Review HHERA Review Revise HHERA Revise HHERA Revise HHERA Consultation 5 Deliverable 3 Deliverable 4 - Exposure point - Draft HHERA - Final HHERA concentrations - Future concentrations - Calculation approach Consultation 6 - Presentation/ discussion of results of HHERA 33 CanNorth Thank-you 34 17