Submissions received by panel probing tailings dam collapse
Issues raised include dam design and government oversight
Two submissions to an expert panel appointed to investigate the tailings dam collapse at Imperial Metals’ Mount Polley mine have raised issues of poor dam design and deficiencies in the inspection of mines and enforcement of regulations.
The B.C. Tap Water Alliance and the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre made their submissions public, providing the first look at what type of submissions the three-member expert panel has received.
The panel made an unusual call in November for public submissions, meant “to leave no stone unturned,” in determining the causes of the dam collapse. Submissions had to be in by Dec. 7, and the panel is scheduled to release its findings on Jan. 31.
In total, there were 24 submissions to the panel, including from industry groups such as the Mining Association of B.C.
The 47-page UVic law centre report — entitled Not an Act of God — raises concerns about the role of government oversight and the B.C. government’s reliance on professionals who are employed by the mine to conduct inspections. The report, authored by UVic law students, said it was important the panel “recognize that engineering design, mining operations and regulatory oversight issues are not merely questions of physical causation but occur within a legal and regulatory context that govern behaviour.”
The report said a key problem is the B.C. government relies on the expertise and diligence of professional engineers to inspect and report, but gives them no power or authority to require that the mining operation make changes.
The report said the problem is compounded by a lack of timely followup by government. It pointed to the lack of action on fixing dam instrumentation and problems with dam construction at Mount Polley raised in inspection reports between 2008 and 2010.
“There needs to be a legally effective mechanism for these recommendations to be followed; failure to do so should have a legal consequence and should be considered non-compliance,” said the report.
The UVic law centre recommended following the example of oversight at contaminated sights, where a roster of qualified people appointed by government, and at arm’s length of the companies, conduct inspections and reports.
“I’m looking forward to what the independent panel comes up with, what they decide,” said UVic law instructor Mark Haddock, who supervised the student’s project under the auspices of the environmental law centre.
“There may well be lessons from Mount Polley that go well beyond mining,” noted Haddock.
The 194-page B.C. Tap Water Alliance report — entitled Scene of the Crime — points the finger at the design of the dam.
The report concludes the type of design (a modified upstream design, one of three general types used for tailings dams) is not well suited for tailings storage facilities that will hold a lot of water and are located in wet areas. The mine is located southeast of Williams Lake in an Interior rainforest belt.
Report author Will Koop is not a geotechnical engineer but he said he examined dozens of mine reports and industry documents, including textbooks on tailings dam design, to come to his conclusion.
For example, his report noted that a 1994 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency document on the design and evaluation of tailings dams said upstream-designed dams are not suitable for significant water storage.
Koop, the coordinator of the B.C. Tap Water Alliance, an environmental advocacy group that focuses on the province’s drinking water supplies, said he believes the tailings dam collapse was preventable. “I think I have raised significant issues the panel will have to deal with,” he said in an interview.
The Mining Association of B.C.’s submission to the panel noted the industry group has “confidence” in the panel’s scientific assessment and mandate, said spokeswoman Cailey Murphy.
The association declined to release its report until the panel completes its work.
Transportation assistant deputy minister Kevin Richter, who is acting as secretary to the expert panel, said the 24 submissions came from individuals, organizations and companies.
While Richter said he could not discuss details of the submissions, he said the information was valuable. He said it has not been decided yet how the submissions will be incorporated into the report from the panel.
The panel is asking for permission from the submitters to release their reports with its findings.