1. 1 NRCan’s Final Hearing Presentation: Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project : Prepared for the Nunavut Impact Review Board Presented by: John Clarke Director, Environmental Assessment Division March 2-14, 2015

2. 2 Outline  Mandate & role  Technical Review Terrain Stability Hydrogeology, permafrost and taliks Mine waste characterization and management 3. Questions

3. 3 NRCan’s Mandate  Enhance responsible development, use and competitiveness of Canada’s natural resources and products.  Lead science and technology in the fields of earth sciences, energy, forests, and minerals and metals.

4. 4 NRCan’s Role in this Project Explosives Act and Regulations Geochemical characterization expertise: Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching Mine Waste Management Earth sciences expertise: Geology Permafrost and Hydrogeology

5. 5 Technical Review: Mine waste characterization and management Focused on potential for acid rock drainage and metal leaching and mine waste management. Identified a number of verifications for inclusion in the FEIS; these were not major deficiencies. AREVA has addressed NRCan’s comments. NRCan is satisfied with the information provided by AREVA and the commitments related to mine waste characterization and management.

6. 6 Technical Review: Permafrost and terrain stability  Focused on the design and performance of the foundations for site facilities (e.g. ore/waste rock piles, site access/haul roads, water management facilities and Andrew Lake dewatering facility).  NRCan recommended that AREVA conduct further site specific geotechnical investigations for detailed design. AREVA’s commitments sufficiently address NRCan’s recommendations.

7. 7 Technical Review – Hydrogeology, permafrost and presence of taliks  Groundwater flow is influenced by the presence of permafrost.  In its review of the DEIS, NRCan recommended that AREVA:  Collect additional baseline data on ground temperatures (thermal conditions).  Consider that permafrost thickness may vary within the local study area.  Consider a range of ground temperatures in the identification of lakes that may have open taliks.

8. 8 Technical Review – Hydrogeology, permafrost and presence of taliks  Based on NRCan’s review it is not clear whether the revised analysis actually considered warmer ground temperatures or if there is an error in the text.  AREVA has clarified that their analysis considered warmer ground temperatures. AREVA’s comments and commitments sufficiently address NRCan’s recommendations.

9. 9 Summary of NRCan’s Review  NRCan is satisfied with the information provided by AREVA.  AREVA’s Post EA commitments have addressed NRCan’s recommendations.  NRCan does not have additional recommendations for the Nunavut Impact Review Board’s consideration.

10. 10 Questions?