No charges will be laid by the provincial government due to the failure of the Mount Polley tailings dam, said the B.C. chief mines inspector.
“The chief inspector found that the mine and its engineers employed weak practices on the mine site and many recommendations go to new standards and guidelines to improve these practices,” said the Ministry of Energy and Mines in a news release.
“Weak practices, however, do not constitute a legal contravention of existing mining legislation.
“The CIM, with advice from the Ministry of Justice, did not find sufficient evidence that Mount Polley Mining Corporation contravened existing regulatory requirements. Based on these findings, the Chief Inspector of Mines determined there were no actions that would warrant a report to Crown Counsel pursuant to the Mines Act.”
In August 2014 Imperial Metals’ tailings dam at Mount Polley Mine failed resulting in a large debris field and water ban in the British Columbia interior affecting 300 residents.
The mines minister said the regulations around allowable risk are too narrow and new regulations will be forthcoming.
͞”We͛ve learned from this investigation that in the case of Mount Polley, the allowable margin of risk around the design, construction and management of the tailings storage facility was too
narrow to allow for an unknown factor, the layer of unstable soils below the dam embankment.
We’ve also learned that weak practices on the mine site increased the risk of dam failure and exacerbated environmental consequences from the breach.͟
“This is unacceptable. My commitment is to implement all recommendations, work with the MABC and MAC, the APEGBC and the CDA to ensure that risk of dam failure is reduced by better regulations, better policies and better professional guidelines.͟”
Key recommendations released were the following:
12 Comments
Matthew Cartier
For anyone in need of an expert tailings dam engineer, check me out on LinkedIn. I’m available. MRC
john metzger
“STRONG PRACTICES” ..performed by the professional staff on site, their well qualified managers, and consultants. Monitoring with working and well arrayed traditional instruments (piezos, inclinometers, prisms) integrating with appropriate GB InSAR monitoring, SAT InSAR, or other seasonal LIDAR/photogrammetry tools — this is the equation for Strong on-site practices ..supported by
Weekly/monthly or daily if required, reporting that is shared among TMF/OPs/ENG/MGMT teams offers the best opportunity for success immediately and over the long term.
hans sanou
disgusting to say the least, cozy arrangement between a major contributor to the Liberal government, jail time is required here for the corporate criminals and government officials who are involved in this decision.
Nordbird
Common sense says that you are supposed to have a QP (Qualified Person) to inspect dams at least once a year, and take their recommendations seriously. Some companies do not do this, with potentially serious results. Whether required by law or not, do it anyway, and save a huge amount of grief.
ronwilton
BS. The original engineers of the pond signed off on responsibility after the mine owners started raising the berms and over-filling the pond.
http://www.mining.com/canadas-mount-polley-disaster-experts-warned-tailings-pond-getting-large/
Robert Vairo
I’m not an engineer but I don’t see anything in the recommendations that will prevent this from happening again. The CEO,V P’s, and the Board of Directors can prevent a repeat, or anything similar from happening, not subordinate and manipulative managers and supervisors. How about recommending this new law with some tweaking ( because I’m not a lawyer either) “Any damage caused by your facilities that results in pain and hardship to individuals and businesses, and impacts the environment in the very least, will result in a fine of 100 million dollars ( not up to 100 million) + total cost of clean up while facility operations close, + full compensation to individuals and businesses as determined by an independent board made up of victims, unaffected citizens, one government, one unrelated corporate representative, an engineer, and a retired judge ( who has nothing to lose) + jail terms for its president and CEO, and conspiring vice presidents. Only then will the said company be allowed to resume operations.”
That should do it!
ScottyonDenman
The BC Liberal government began raising suspicion about its integrity almost immediately upon being elected: after losing the previous election because leader Gordon Campbell had promised to sell publicly-owned BC Rail, he reversed his position and promised to NOT sell it. He finally won, but soon broke his promise and sold BC Rail, in what we now know was a corrupt process, after cooking the books to make it look like it was losing money (it actually turned a surplus every year). The Opposition increased its seats ten-fold in the following election, but it still wasn’t enough to turn out the BC Liberals. By the next election, the RCMP had raided the Legislature, seizing documents relating to the sale of BC Rail, leading to a trial which itself was terminated under suspicious circumstances just before BC Liberal government ministers were about to be called to testify. Two BC Liberal staff had suddenly switched their plea to guilty in return for their legal bills being covered by taxpayers—to this day considered a breach of law by many legal observers—and on the condition they hush up about anything else they know about the tainted sale.
By this time Campbell was making the campaign promise not to impose a Harmonized Sales Tax, which he subsequently did impose soon after being re-elected to a third term. Though BC Rail was a huge scandal (which probably isn’t over) that cost the province about a billion dollars in lost assets and revenue, many other policies had also raised suspicion, including the dys-management of BC Ferries, and the parasitizing of BC Hydro, both venerable Crown Corps; the HST lie was the straw that broke the camel’s back, forcing Campbell to resign.
His successor was able to resurrect the disgraced party only because the NDP Opposition ran a ridiculously stupid campaign. Though probably no different in ethical terms, the re-elected caucus, now minus about half its previous members (who’d resigned expecting the party would get thrashed) and its micro-managing neo-right policy wonk of a Premier, was fundamentally riven into at least two antagonistic camps, Christy Clark’s Premier’s Office and the rump of residual Campbellites, who’ve raised suspicion even higher by running the most secretive government ever—in fact, the Premier is currently simmering in increasingly hot water for allowing staff to delete all government emails under the tutelage of two former Ontario government staffers who have just been charged with criminal offences in that regard (i.e., in Ontario—one, who was hired as Christy’s Chief of Staff when these allegations were know publicly, has resigned a few days ago to meet these charges).
Nobody expected Christy to redeem the disgraced BC Liberals, and nobody expected her to exemplify a higher ethical standard. The last election was never about ethics—the BC Liberals’ reputation cannot be expunged—but, rather, it was about the NDP (under the previous leader) not deserving to take the reins. Thus things like Mount Polley happen, people are outraged, but not surprised. Personally, I think BC Liberals imagine the rather dull uproar over their litany of transgressions means they have more licence than they really do; but the citizens of BC are fast tiring of the absurdist responses from their government: the sight of the Mines Minister standing by the devastated creek downstream from the tailings-pond breach proclaiming “Catastrophe? What catastrophe? Everything’s just fine,” doesn’t warrant any cogent response from voters except at the ballot-box.
Meanwhile, the central problem of a weak NDP party seems to have been remedied with a new and much more energetic leader who has been raising his profile steadily for months, and will doubtlessly be getting serious consideration in 17 months. His name is John Horgan.
rayban
Just put in monitoring equipment and have it be on a PC screen in the office on a dedicated PC . Government should inspect the entire system monthly and get the hour by hour log files every damn day by internet . Expecting stressed out mining companies to do that without government opversght is stupid .
Trouble with nationalistic scenes where big money is involved is the cheap and easy safety procedures and easy to implement fixes get tossed by the cut or spend lazy arse holes we call CEOs . Micromanaging leadership most always messes up bad .
Need I mention who pressured the Gulf oil spill , mount pooey and the numerous other recent failures . It was always upper manmjagemnent that messed up . Eveery damn time .
Government is unfortunately the only way to stop this ultra negligent type of activity .
It is embarrassing at time to be investor in mining and oil ….. The disasters baffle my friends and associates …..
I like mining , I hate being embarrassed so CEOs just complain about the stock prices and keep on doing lame idiot crap .
patentbs
There is definitely a difference between meeting the minimum regulations and good practice. That is why insurance costs are so high for your stamp!
Management. .. ignore engineering at your own peril.
George Kofoed
It won’t make any difference.
Wayne F.
Weak practices… Did not contravene existing legislation… resulting in a large debris field…
Can we water down the narrative any more?
NOTHING from the proceedings and from the response, acknowledges serious harm and wrong-doing occurred here that needs to be (1) owned, (2) prevented from reoccurring.
Wayne F.
“Establish a dedicated investigation, compliance and enforcement team within the Ministry of Energy and Mines lead by a new deputy chief inspector of mines. This team will provide additional support and oversight of existing ministry investigation, compliance and enforcement functions.”
What a holy cow good idea. No wonder it never occurred to the Ministry before…