DOCSLIB.ORG

Full Report [PDF]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Full Report [PDF] REVIEW OF IN-PIT DISPOSAL PRACTICES FOR THE PREVENTION OF ACID DRAINAGE - CASE STUDIES MEND Report 2.36.1 This work was done on behalf of MEND and sponsored by Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited as well as the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) through the CANADA/Northern Ontario Development Agreement (NODA) September 1995 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Open pit mines that have ceased production are increasingly being considered for the permanent and environmentally acceptable disposal of mine waste rock and tailings that are, or have the demonstrated potential to become, sources of acidic drainage. This report addresses key aspects that need to be taken into consideration when evaluating the in-pit disposal of wastes and presents 12 case studies of actual and planned in-pit disposal of mine wastes. There are four basic concepts for the placement of wastes in pits: Option 1 - Underwater disposal Option 3 - Dry disposal Option 2 - Elevated water tables Option 4 - Perched water tables The four options are described in terms of the theoretical concepts and practical aspects; selected examples of research and field applications are provided from the published literature. Not all pits are suitable for the in-pit disposal of wastes. The success of an application would depend on many technical factors, including: ! the acid generation potential of the wastes and pit walls; ! the geotechnical characteristics and properties of the wastes and the pit walls; ! predicted pore water, pit water, and groundwater quality; ! hydrogeology of the open pit; and ! the hydrology of the open pit. Mine related constraints must also be taken into consideration. These include: limiting access to remaining mineralization below the pit; wall stability and related safety concerns; available access; and the proximity of underground workings to the open pit. Consideration must be given to both the short term and long term implications of the in-pit disposal concept; these include ecological and human health protection and S-1 Executive Summary closure planning perspectives. Each site is unique and may have special constraints with respect to the quality and use of surface water and groundwater, land use, and sensitive ecological communities. The potential costs for future in-pit disposal of wastes should be considered in the preliminary economic evaluations that are used to establish final pit limits. Greater than expected waste disposal costs could have an unfavourable impact on the future profitability of some open pit mines. Volume 2 of this report presents twelve case studies: seven case studies describe in-pit disposal programs that have been implemented; two case studies describe proposed in- pit disposal programs; and three case studies provide technical information from other pits which will likely be of interest to persons evaluating in-pit disposal programs. The following case studies describe pits that have been used for in-pit disposal of mine wastes: The Owl Creek pit - To prevent discharge of acidic drainage from waste rock piles, the waste rock was relocated to the pit and flooded. The Rabbit Lake pit - This pit is likely the first application of an engineered pit disposal concept, which involved the use of a bottom rock drain, an engineered pervious envelope, placement of tailings as a dry filter cake, and closure with a surface lake and a soil/sand diffusion barrier. The Collins Bay B-Zone pit - Following extensive decommissioning studies, the special waste (which contains elevated arsenic, nickel, sulphur, or uranium content) was placed in the bottom of the pit and the pit was flooded, creating a pit lake. The Solbec pit - A crown pillar pit was filled with reactive waste as a means of inhibiting further acidic drainage. The Udden pit - The pit was backfilled with reactive waste rock and allowed to flood. S-2 Executive Summary The Stratabound CNE pit - The in-pit disposal of reactive waste rock was planned at the design stage, and the waste rock has been relocated to the pit and clay capped. The Cluff Lake "D" Zone pit: The pit flooded after the end of mining operations, and an extensive monitoring program has been carried out to evaluate the physical and chemical changes occurring in the pit lake water column. In-pit disposal programs have been proposed at the following case study sites: The Island Copper pit - As part of planned closure, it is proposed that the pit be flooded to create a meromictic lake. The Deilmann pit - Insufficient capacity exists within an existing surface tailings management facility to accommodate future tailings production therefore tailings disposal options are being reviewed; one option involves the conversion of the Deilmann pit to a full side drain and under-drain tailings management facility. Additional case studies which may provide useful information to persons evaluating in-pit disposal programs are: Robinson Mining District - Extensive numerical modelling was carried out to evaluate the hydrogeochemistry and to support the prediction of environmental impacts from several pit lakes. The Gunnar pit - This pit lake is interesting because of unique and well- documented limnological characteristics. The Berkeley pit - This mine site is part of a U.S. Superfund site and is a well- known example of a serious acidic drainage problem in a flooding open pit. S-3 SOMMAIRE On envisage de plus en plus d'utiliser les fosses des mines à ciel ouvert désaffectées pour l'élimination permanente et acceptable au point de vue environnemental des résidus et des stériles qui produisent ou sont reconnus comme pouvant produire des eaux de drainage acides. Le rapport qui suit porte sur les principaux éléments dont il faut tenir compte lorsqu'on étudie une telle possibilité et présente 12 études de cas de mines où un tel entreposage est prévu ou déjà en cours. Il existe quatre possibilités de base pour l'entreposage des déchets dans les fosses : 1re solution - entreposage sous l'eau 2e solution - nappe d'eau surélevée 3e solution - dépôt de matériaux secs 4e solution - nappe d'eau perchée. Pour chaque solution, les aspects théoriques et pratiques sont décrits; des exemples de travaux de recherche et d'applications concrètes tirés de publications sont fournis. Les fosses de mine ne se prêtent pas toutes à l'entreposage des déchets miniers, c'est pourquoi il faut examiner certains facteurs techniques : ! le potentiel de production d'acide dans les déchets et sur les parois de la mine; ! les caractéristiques géotechniques et les propriétés des déchets et des parois de la mine; ! les prévisions concernant la qualité de l'eau interstitielle, de l'eau de la mine et de l'eau souterraine; ! l'hydrogéologie de la mine à ciel ouvert ! l'hydrologie de la mine à ciel ouvert. 1 Il faut aussi prendre en compte les contraintes liées à la mine, notamment : la réduction de l'accès à la minéralisation qui se poursuit sous la mine, la stabilité des parois et les mesures de sécurité connexes, l'accès possible, et la proximité des travaux souterrains par rapport à la fosse. Il ne faut pas ignorer les répercussions à court et à long terme de l'entreposage des déchets dans les fosses, tant du point de vue de la protection de l'environnement et de la santé du public que de la planification de la fermeture du site. Chaque emplacement étant unique, les contraintes quant à la qualité et à l'utilisation de l'eau de surface et de l'eau souterraine, à l'utilisation du terrain et aux écosystèmes fragiles. Les coûts de l'entreposage éventuel des déchets dans les fosses devraient faire partie des évaluations économiques préliminaires à partir desquelles seront établies les limites définitives des mines. Un dépassement des prévisions pour l'entreposage des déchets pourrait nuire à la rentabilité future de certaines mines à ciel ouvert. Vous trouverez, dans la partie 2 du rapport, douze études de cas; sept décrivent des programmes d'entreposage des sites déjà utilisés, deux pour des projets de programmes d'entreposage proposés, et trois fournissent des renseignements techniques sur d'autres fosses, renseignements susceptibles d'intéresser les personnes chargées d'évaluer les programmes d'entreposage dans les fosses. Les fosses des mines suivantes servent à l'entreposage des déchets miniers : La mine Owl Creek - afin de prévenir la production d'eaux acides dans les haldes, les stériles ont été déplacés dans la fosse et couverts d'eau. La mine de Rabbit Lake - Cette mine est vraisemblablement la première à 2 utiliser un concept d'entreposage aménagé; on a utilisé un drain de pierres dans le fond et une enveloppe poreuse sur les parois, ensuite les résidus sont placés comme gâteau de filtration sec et on a couvert le tout d'un lac de surface et d'une barrière de diffusion sol-sable. La mine de Collins Bay - Zone B - Après des études poussées sur la fermeture de la mine, on a placé les déchets spéciaux (contenant de fortes concentrations d'arsenic, de nickel, de soufre ou d'uranium) au fond de la fosse, avant d'inonder cette dernière, créant ainsi un lac. La mine Solbec - Un pilier de couronne a été rempli de déchets réactifs afin de contrer le drainage acide. La mine Udden - La fosse a été remplie avec des stériles réactifs et on a permis son inondation. La mine CNE, de Stratabound - L'entreposage des stériles réactifs dans la fosse était prévu dès le moment de la conception; les stériles ont été redéposés dans la fosse et recouverts d'une couche argileuse. La mine de Cluff Lake - Zone D - Une fois les travaux d'exploitation terminés, la fosse s'est inondée et un programme de surveillance intensive a été entrepris dans le but de déterminer les changements physiques et chimiques survenant dans la colonne d'eau du lac de la fosse.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • View Annual Report
    The Future is Nuclear 2005 ANNUAL REPORT Bridging the Gene Producing affordable, clean energy while achieving a sustainable balance between increasing electricity demand and environmental stewardship – this is the promise and potential of a future powered by nuclear energy. It’s why a new generation is opting for nuclear as a reliable and secure energy choice. Cameco is poised and ready to support the new generation. We are a company with the expertise and capacity to deliver the benefits of nuclear energy – starting right now. As the world’s largest uranium producer, Cameco already provides about 20% of global uranium production from the richest mines on the planet. We are also expanding our production by developing two new mines. The company is looking ration Gap to the long-term nuclear future, seeking new reserves OUR PROFILE through a global exploration program with emphasis Cameco, with its head office in in North America and Australia. In nuclear fuel Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, is the production, Cameco has 38% of the western world’s world’s largest uranium producer UF6 conversion capacity, and provides conversion as well as a significant supplier of services and fuel fabrication for Candu reactors. conversion services. The company’s Power production rounds out Cameco’s nuclear competitive position is based on its focus, with 1,000 MW of nuclear power in Ontario. controlling ownership of the world’s largest high-grade reserves and low- A new generation, attentive to the wisdom of cost operations. Cameco’s uranium scientists, environmentalists and consumers, products are used to generate clean understands the future is nuclear.
    [Show full text]
  • + 2020 Annual Information Form
    Denison Mines Corp. 2020 Annual Information Form March 26, 2021 ABOUT THIS ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM This annual information form (“AIF”) is dated March 26, Table of Contents 2021. Unless stated otherwise, all of the information in this AIF is stated as at December 31, 2020. About this AIF .................................... 1 About Denison ................................... 6 This AIF has been prepared in accordance with Canadian Developments over the Last Three securities laws and contains information regarding Years ................................................. 8 Denison’s history, business, mineral reserves and The Uranium Industry ........................ 17 resources, the regulatory environment in which Denison Mineral Resources and Reserves 24 does business, the risks that Denison faces and other Mineral Properties ............................. 27 important information for Shareholders. Athabasca Exploration: Sampling, Analysis and Data Verification ........... 102 This AIF incorporates by reference: Denison Operations ........................... 107 Manager of UPC ................................ 111 Denison’s management discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) for the year ended December 31, 2020, Denison Closed Mines Group ........... 112 Environmental, Health, Safety and Denison’s audited consolidated financial Sustainability Matters ........................ 112 statements for the year ended December 31, 2020, Government Regulation .................... 114 Risk Factors ...................................... 120 both of which
    [Show full text]
  • 20170828-Jason-Cameron-Nuclear-Infrastructure-Council-Eng.Pdf
    THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION PRESENTATION TO THE USNIC TRADE MISSION TO CANADA Jason Cameron, Vice-President Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission nuclearsafety.gc.ca August 28, 2017 – Ottawa, Ontario Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission • Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment • Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy • Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public Canada’s nuclear watchdog We will never compromise safety! Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 2 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission • Established in May 2000, under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act • Replaced the Atomic Energy and Control Board (AECB) under the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act More than 70 years of ensuring nuclear safety Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 3 CNSC Regulates All Nuclear-Related Facilities and Activities • Uranium mines and mills • Uranium fuel fabrication and processing • Nuclear power plants • Nuclear substance processing • Industrial and medical applications • Nuclear research and educational activities • Transportation of nuclear substances • Nuclear security and safeguards • Export/import control • Waste management facilities …From cradle to grave Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 4 Independent Commission • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Government of Canada (the Crown) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part-time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • All presentations, including staff’s, are public • Decisions can only be reviewed by Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision-making Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 5 Our Commission Members Dr. Michael Binder President and Chief Executive Officer, CNSC (Term expires May 8, 2018) Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities
    CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION nuclearsafety.gc.ca Michael Binder President and Chief Executive Officer Presentation to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities February 21, 2018 – Ottawa, Ontario nuclearsafety.gc.ca eDOCS: 5437640 The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Our Mandate Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, and security and the environment Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public We will never compromise safety 2 nuclearsafety.gc.ca The CNSC Regulates All Nuclear Facilities And Activities In Canada Uranium mines and mills Nuclear research and educational activities Uranium fuel fabrication and processing Transportation of nuclear substances Nuclear power plants Nuclear security and safeguards Nuclear substance processing Import and export controls Industrial and medical applications Waste management facilities 3 nuclearsafety.gc.ca CNSC Staff Located Across Canada Fiscal year 2017–18 Human resources: 857 full-time equivalents Financial resources: $148 million (~70% cost recovery; ~30% appropriation) Licensees: 1,700 Licences: 2,500 Headquarters (HQ) in Ottawa 4 site offices at power plants Saskatoon Calgary 1 site office at Chalk River 4 regional offices Chalk River HQ Point Lepreau Laval Bruce Darlington Mississauga Pickering 4 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Independent Commission • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Crown (duty to consult) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part-time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • Staff presentations in public • Decisions are reviewable by Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision making 5 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Commission Members Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Canada's Uranium Industry
    6-Orono Weekly Times, Wednesday, August 24, 1983 to increase • "efficiency, pro­ cesses were unproved and the New Recreation Building for senior citizens ’ plant was enlarged from a random collection of buildings to a sophisticated complex. In 1954 the refinery Orono was overhauled and a new , system installed which enabl ­ ed the company to obtain a Building purified metal product. Four -, years later its uranium metal Contractor plant began production of a ; fuel to be used in research Brick - Block - Concrete | reactors, such as those at Stone Work Chalk River, and in,reactors which created electrical Carpentry - Cabinet energy. Previously this fuel Work had had to be imported front the United States. Floors - Tile Eldorado also continued to play a dominant regulating Phbne 983-5444 ORONO role in the industry. Passage of the Atomic Energy Con ­ trol Act in 1946 evidenced the Canadian government ’s in : ' terest in supervising the development, application and Clarke Public The new recreation Lodge in Orono now pro­ area in the basement for shuf­ pleted at a cost of $100,000 use of atomic energy. For building officially opened' on vides facilities of a banquet fle board, pool table, hand which money was supplied by . over a decade it used the firm LIBRARY and assembly hall, a kitchen, shuffle board and darts. the Durham County Senior as the producer-consumer in ­ Monday night at the Durham Tuesday 1-8 p.m. a laundry and a recreational The new hall was com­ Citizen ’s Lodge. termediary in the marketing County Senior Citizen ’s Wednesday 1-5p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Base Load Electricity in Ontario
    [Type text] Canadian Energy Research Institute Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Base Load Electricity Generation in Ontario Seyed Jazayeri Paul Kralovic Afshin Honarvar Abbas Naini Jon Rozhon Rami Shabaneh Thorn Walden Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Association October 2008 Relevant • Independent • Objective COMPARATIVE LIFE CYLE ASESSMENT (LCA) OF BASE LOAD ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN ONTARIO ii Canadian Energy Research Institute v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................IX LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................XI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. XV ES1.1 Background .........................................................................................................xv ES1.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................xv ES1.3 Methodology........................................................................................................xv ES1.4 The Process LCA ................................................................................................. xvi ES2 Power Generation in Canada ................................................................................ xvi ES3
    [Show full text]
  • Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: the Canadian Context
    Cov-Public Confidence Canadian 30/09/03 12:45 Page 1 Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 © OECD 2003 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • ACCIDENTS, LEAKS, FAILURES and OTHER INCIDENTS in the NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL and MILITARY 1. 1947, October
    ACCIDENTS, LEAKS, FAILURES AND OTHER INCIDENTS IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY 1. 1947, October - U.S.A., ATLANTIC OCEAN A retired navy pilot Lieutenant-Commander George Earl IV has claimed that he dumped radioactive Waste off the Atlantic seaboard on three flights in 1947. Lt-Commander Earl said he disclosed the radioactive dumping because of the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over the possibility of the cannisters leaking. ("The West Australian" - 3rd January 1981) 2. 1950, 13th February - U.S.A., PACIFIC OCEAN A B-36 which developed serious mechanical difficulties on a simulated combat mission, dropped a nuclear weapon from 8,000 ft. over the Pacific Ocean before crashing. Luckily only the weapon's explosive material detonated. Nothing is known of attempts to recover the nuclear weapon and presumably it is still in the ocean. (The Defence Monitor Vol.X No.5 1981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 3. 1950, 11th April - NEW MEXICO, U.S.A. A B-29 crashed into a mountain on Manzano Base approximately three minutes after take-off. The bomb case was demolished and some high explosive material burned. The nuclear components of the weapon were recovered and returned to the Atomic Energy Commission. (The Defence Monitor - Vol.X No.5 19981 Washington D.C. "The National Times" 15th March 1981) 4. 1950, 13th Jul. - OHIO, U.S.A. A B-50 on training mission crashed killing 16 crewmen. The high explosive portion of the weapon aboard detonated on impact. No nuclear capsule aboard the aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography on Saskatchewan Uranium Inquiries and the Northern and Global Impact of the Uranium Industry
    University of Regina iNis-mf—13125 __ CA9200098 Prairie Justice Research Bibliography on Saskatchewan Uranium Inquiries and The Northern and Global Impact of the Uranium Industry :• IN THF PimhlC INTEREST BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SASKATCHEWAN URANIUM INQUIRIES AND THE NORTHERN AND GLOBAL IMPACT OF THE URANIUM INDUSTRY Jim Harding, B.A. (Hons.), M.A., Ph.D. Director, Prairie Justice Research Beryl Forgay, B.Ed., B.HE., M.A. Research Officer, Prairie Justice Research Mary Gianoli, B.Ed. Research Co-ordinator, Prairie Justice Research Cover Design: Rick Coffin Published by PRAIRIE JUSTICE RESEARCH 1988 SERIES: IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST (Research Report No. 1) Published by: Prairie Justice Research Room 515 Library Building University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan Canada S4S OA2 Cataloguing in Publication Data Harding, Jim, 1941- Bibliography on Saskatchewan uranium inquiries and the northern and global impact of the uranium industry ISBN 0-7731-0052-0 I. Uranium mines and mining - Environmental aspects - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. 2. Uranium industry - Environmental aspects - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. 3. Uranium industry - Government policy - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. I. Forgay. Beryl, 1926- II. University of Regina. Prairie Justice Research. III. Title. Z6738.U7H37 1986 016.3637'384 C86-091166-: ISBN 0-7731-0135 (Set) This is a publication of Prairie Justice Research at the University of Regina. Prairie Justice Research is funded by an operating contract with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and has the capacity to conduct socio-legal research for a diverse range of constituencies. For further informaiton contact: Dr. Jim Harding Director Prairie Justice Research Library Building University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan Canada S4S 0A2 (306) 584-4064 NOTE: This research project was funded through "Human Context of Science and Technology" strategic grants of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
    CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION Jason K. Cameron Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, and Chief Communications Officer NARUC Summer Policy Summit – Committee on International Relations July 15, 2018 – Scottsdale, Arizona OUR MANDATE 2 Regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, and security and the environment Implement Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Disseminate objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca THE CNSC REGULATES ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES 3 AND ACTIVITIES IN CANADA Uranium mines Uranium fuel Nuclear power Nuclear substance Industrial and and mills fabrication and plants processing medical applications processing Nuclear research Transportation of Nuclear security Import and Waste management and educational nuclear substances and safeguards export controls facilities activities Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca CNSC STAFF LOCATED ACROSS CANADA 4 Headquarters (HQ) in Ottawa Four site offices at power plants One site office at Chalk River Four regional offices Fiscal year 2017–18 • Human resources: 857 full-time equivalents • Financial resources: $148 million Saskatoon Calgary (~70% cost recovery; ~30% appropriation) • Licensees: 1,700 Chalk River HQ • Licences: 2,500 Point Lepreau Laval Bruce Darlington Mississauga Pickering Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca INDEPENDENT COMMISSION 5 TRANSPARENT, SCIENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Crown (duty to consult) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • Staff presentations in public • Decisions are reviewable by Federal Court Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca THE CNSC’S NEW PRESIDENT 6 Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • September 1986
    - TORONTO FIELD NATURALIST Number 381, September 1986 ,%:.;-• ~r / • f ' , / ' / /;/ ,-:-" I _',.."' / ',, l~ir.t~,.i, · .... .. ;~~IJ 1L :L___ ~_Ml j ': I , l '-,1., . ,'\-' '.. .v . ' I . ~ • .' . \. \' . '.~.,, \ COVER TO COVER: PRESIDENT'S REPORT 2 - SEPTEMBER OUTINGS 3 - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 5 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7 - PEOPLE 7 - HAIKU 8 - KEEPING IN TOUCH 9 - TODMORDEN MILLS REPORT 14 - IN EXCHANGE 16 - TORONTO REGION BIRD RECORDS 17 - PHANTOM FLYERS IN THE NIGHT 18 - OF SHREWS, MOLES, MICE, VOLES 20 - IN THE NEWS 21 - I SSUES 25 - THE WEATHER THIS TIME LAST YEAR 30 - POEM 30 - COURSES OF STUDY 31 - THIS MONTH'S COVER 32 - COMING EVENTS 33 - GRANTS AVAILABLE 34 - TFN MEETINGS 35 TFN 381 President's Report As there were no written nominations received, your directors for 1986/87 will be those listed on page 3 of the May newsletter. (See also page 7.) Little murmurs have indicated that some members think it is time the reins of the club passed to the men, Now it has happened! Your new President is Phil Joiner who will have Robin Powell as Vice President, Seven of this year's board are men. * A follow-up to the April mail problem. Helen Juhola has been in touch with the local postal authorities. I wrote to my Member of Parliament on behalf of the Toronto Field Naturalists. Although there has been a response from both, we have notyet received final answers to why there was such a breakdown in the mail service in April. Summer brings change in the TFN activities but our environmental concerns don't take a holiday.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Point and Arrow Zone Analogy
    EAGLE POINT AND ARROW ZONE ANALOGY By: Garrett Ainsworth, BSc, PGeo INTRODUCTION TO EAGLE POINT: . Eagle Point Uranium deposits are located on the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin, and are part of the Rabbit Lake Uranium district, which also includes the Rabbit Lake and Collins Bay deposits. The Rabbit Lake Uranium District has produced more than 190 million pounds of uranium concentrates since production began in 1975 (http://www.cameco.com/businesses/uranium-operations/canada/rabbit-lake). In 1987, a historical (non 43-101 compliant) “total ore reserve” for the Eagle Point deposits comprised approximately 140 Million pounds (64,000 tonnes) at an average grade of about 2.0% U3O8*. Production commenced in 1994. The Eagle Point underground mine is in production today, and as of December 31, 2013 has: estimated proven and probable reserves of 1,642,100 tonnes at 0.56% U3O8 (20.3 Million pounds U3O8); estimated indicated resource of 1,152,600 tonnes at 0.80% U3O8 (20.2 Million pounds U3O8); estimated inferred resource of 708,500 tonnes at 0.58% U3O8 (9.0 Million pounds U3O8). Reference: http://www.cameco.com/businesses/uranium- operations/canada/rabbit-lake/reserves-resources . Eagle Point was initially discovered in 1980 by Gulf Minerals Canada Ltd. while drill testing geophysical and geochemical anomalies northeast along strike from the Collins Bay Uranium deposits. The Eagle Point deposits are a series of moderately to steeply dipping tabular veins and lenses, which are concordant and discordant to variably graphitic Wollaston Group metasediments and underlying Archean granitoid gneiss. EAGLE POINT AND ARROW ZONE SIMILARITIES: THE STRUCTURE .
    [Show full text]