Fisheries and Oceans Canada & Environment Canadas Joint - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fisheries and Oceans Canada & Environment Canada’s Joint Intervention Presentation

Ekati Mine BHP Billiton Diamonds Inc.

Public Hearing Yellowknife, Northwest Territories DFO Review Team Fisheries and Oceans Canada EC Review Team Environment Canada February 2013

Page 2

Overview

• Environment Canada’s Roles and Responsibilities
• DFO’s Roles and Responsibilities
• Key Issues Related to:
• Freshwater Environment
• Atmospheric Environment
• Term of Water Licence
• Closing Remarks

Page 3

EC’s Roles and Responsibilities

Environment Canada (EC):

• Reviews proposals for environmental impacts falling within its

mandate typically relate to:

• Water Quality and Quantity;
• Migratory Birds and Species at Risk; and
• Air Quality.
• Provides expert advice and recommendations to the

Wek’eezhii Land and Water Board.

Page 4

DFO’s Roles and Responsibilities

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO):

• Reviews proposals for environmental impacts falling within its

mandate typically relate to:

• The management and protection of fish and marine

mammals and their habitats.

• Provides expert advice and recommendations to the

Wek’eezhii Land and Water Board.

Page 5

FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT

Page 6

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.1: Selenium Water Quality Benchmark

Concern/Rationale:

• BHP Billiton (BHPB) reviewed a

water quality benchmark for selenium

• f 0.001 mg/L.
• As identified by BHPB, DFO and EC

believe that a fish tissue based benchmark/criteria is preferable to a water quality benchmark for selenium.

Page 7

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.1:

EC/DFO recommends that:

• A fish tissue benchmark be set for selenium with an associated

Management Response Plan.

Photo Credit - P. Vecsei

Page 8

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.2: Aluminum Water Quality Benchmark

Concern/Rationale:

• Golder Associates stated in the Aluminum Freshwater Toxicity

Benchmark Report, “…it can be extremely toxic to fish under acidic (pH <6) or alkaline conditions (pH>8), but has relatively low toxicity to freshwater aquatic fauna between 6 and 8".

• Even though pH has always remained constant between 6 and 8

in the receiving environment at the EKATI mine site, the Water Licence currently has the following condition regarding pH:

“Any water or Waste from the Project that enters the Receiving Environment shall have a pH between 6.0 and 9.0, except surface runoff which shall have a pH between 5.0 and 9.0.”

Page 9

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.2:

EC/DFO recommends that the Board:

• Replace:
• “Any water or waste from the project that enters the receiving

environment shall have a pH between 6.0 and 9.0, except surface runoff which shall have a pH between 5.0 and 9.0.”

• With:
• “Any water or Waste from the project that enters the receiving

environment shall have a pH between 6.0 and 8.0, except surface runoff which shall have a pH between 5.0 and 9.0.”

Page 10

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.3: Nitrate Site Specific Water Quality Objective

Concern/Rationale:

• BHPB has proposed a Site Specific Water Quality Objective for

nitrate as a function of water hardness and individual toxicity test results.

• However, results from the 2012 fish monitoring program have not

been analyzed yet to determine what the potential impacts are to fish species from the changes identified in the plankton

• community. This information is important to have prior to the

Board approving a Site Specific Water Quality Objective for nitrate.

Page 11

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.3:

EC/DFO recommends that:

• In support of the Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency's

recommendation, an interim Effluent Quality Criteria of 10.0mg/L be set for nitrate for a two year period to allow the data from the 2012 fish monitoring program to be analyzed and incorporated into the Site Specific Water Quality Objective assessment.

Page 12

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.4: Management Response Framework

Concern/Rationale:

• BHPB is proposing a management response framework based
• n only two action levels, 75% of benchmark as a low action

level with a high action level being reached when levels are at 100% of the benchmark. BHPB believes that a one year time frame provides an adequate amount of time to respond and mitigate potential effects before the aquatic environment is impacted.

• DFO and EC are concerned that the proposed action levels do

not provide enough of an early warning of environmental effects and that a one year response time frame may not be appropriate.

Page 13

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.4:

EC/DFO recommends that:

a)

To be consistent with the draft WLWB guidelines, a third action level be added to the proposed framework to be more protective of the aquatic receiving environment. A low action level could be added which would be reached when 50% of the benchmark is met;

b)

Appropriate time frames for each action level should be determined for parameters on a case by case basis to ensure effects are mitigated before impacting the aquatic environment;

c)

In addition to the Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program (AEMP) data, Surveillance Network Program (SNP) Monitoring data be used to inform the Management Response Framework where applicable; and

d)

The Management Response Framework be included in the renewed Water Licence within the AEMP Section.

Page 14

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.5: Drawdown of Water Source Lakes

Concern/Rationale:

• BHPB has suggested the following wording for the Water

Licence as a merging of the current clauses D.6 and D.7:

“The Drawdown of Little, Falcon, Grizzly, and Thinner Lakes shall not exceed one (1) metre from the pre-operational water level, or as

• therwise approved by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.”
• The one metre maximum drawdown is in place to avoid impacts

to littoral habitat.

• However, there is confusion as to what the 1 metre drawdown is

currently being compared against.

Page 15

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.5:

DFO recommends that:

• The wording proposed by BHPB be accepted with the provision

that the pre-operational water level is identified and clearly marked

• n the staff gauge to easily determine if the 1m maximum

drawdown is being adhered to.

Page 16

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.6: Intake Screens to Prevent Impingement/ Entrainment of Fish

Concern/Rationale:

• Proper intake screens are designed to avoid the

loss of fish due to impingement and/ or entrainment.

• BHPB has proposed to amend the wording of

Clause 4.5 in Part D (Conditions Applying to Water Use) of the WL to the following:

• “The freshwater intake pumps shall operate

in accordance with the Fisheries and Oceans Canada Freshwater Intake End-of- Pipe Fish Screen Guideline, 1995, or subsequent editions, or as otherwise approved by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.”

Page 17

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.6:

DFO recommends that:

• The WLWB accepts BHPB’s proposed change to the wording of

Clause 4.5 in Part D of the Water Licence.

• If preferred, alternative wording could be:

“The Permittee shall construct and maintain the water intake(s) with a fish screen designed to prevent impingement and/ or entrainment

• f fish, with a maximum design opening of 2.54mm (0.10 inches),

and shall be in accordance with the detailed guidance referred to in Schedule X ”.

Page 18

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.7: Winter Water Withdrawal

Concern/Rationale:

• Excessive amounts of water withdrawn from ice-covered

waterbodies can impact fish through oxygen depletion, loss of

• ver-wintering habitat and/or reductions in littoral habitat.
• Based on discussions between DFO and BHPB, the Proponent

has agreed to follow the DFO Protocol for Winter Water- Withdrawal from Ice-covered Waterbodies in the NWT and NU for Grizzly Lake and Falcon Lake.

Page 19

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.7:

As proposed by BHPB, DFO recommends to the Board that:

• A condition be added to reflect that the DFO Protocol for Winter

Water Withdrawal from Ice-covered Waterbodies in the NWT and NU be followed for water source lakes at the Ekati Diamond

• Mine. Two suggested versions are provided below for the

Board’s consideration:

1) Under-ice Drawdown of Little, Falcon, Grizzly, and Thinner Lakes shall follow procedures outlined in the DFO Protocol for Winter Water Withdrawal from Ice-covered Waterbodies in the NWT and NU, or subsequent editions, or as otherwise approved by DFO; and 2) In one ice-covered season, total water withdrawal from a single waterbody is not to exceed 10% of the available water volume calculated using the appropriate maximum expected ice thickness in accordance with the detailed guidance outlined in Schedule X.

Page 20

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.8: Cujo Lake Proposed Mixing Zone

Concern/Rationale:

• The method used by BHPB to set some of the Effluent Quality

Criteria for the King-Cujo-Lac du Sauvage Watershed relies on using Cujo Lake to provide sufficient mixing to meet proposed benchmarks for nitrate-N, ammonia-N and copper.

Page 21

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.8:

EC/DFO recommends that:

• The Effluent Quality Criteria for Station 1616-43 should be set to

minimize the mixing zone in Cujo Lake, in order to reduce the area of the lake which may have chronic toxicity effects.

Page 22

Freshwater Environment

Issue 4.9: EQCs for Contaminants of Potential Concern

Concern/Rationale:

• BHBP is proposing only five EQCs for the renewed WL
• pH;
• total petroleum hydrocarbons;
• total suspended sediments;
• aluminum; and
• potassium.

Page 23

Freshwater Environment

Recommendation 4.9:

EC/DFO recommends that:

• Effluent Quality Criteria be included in the Water Licence for all

Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) as identified by BHPB.

Page 24

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

Page 25

Atmospheric Environment

Issue 5.1: Incineration of Waste

Concern/Rationale:

• Ekati Incineration of waste has been linked to elevated levels of

dioxins and furans in the Kodiak Lake sediments – in excess of CCME Sediment Quality Guidelines.

• There is concern that the “new” incinerators commissioned in

2012 are not operating properly. Excessive soot build up on the

• utside of the incineration building indicates incomplete burning
• f waste and the possible formation and release of incineration

contaminants.

Page 26

Atmospheric Environment

• Soot covering the outside of the incineration building.
• Photo from AANDC Inspection Report, October 18, 2012

Page 27

Atmospheric Environment

Recommendation 5.1:

EC recommends that:

a)

BHPB develop and implement an Incineration Management Plan incorporating the advice provided in the EC Technical Document for Batch Waste Incineration. Annual reports summarizing incineration activities and operational data should be submitted to the Board;

b)

BHPB complete stack emission testing for all incinerators to ensure achievement of the Canada-wide Standards for Dioxins and Furans and the Canada-wide Standards for Mercury. The stack tests should be completed using the waste streams proposed by BHPB; and

c)

BHPB carry out a special effects study, pending results from the EROD (Ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase) exposure analysis, to determine if levels

• f dioxins and furans in Kodiak fish tissues are elevated.

Page 28

TERM OF WATER LICENCE

Page 29

Term of Water Licence

Issue 6.1: Term of Water Licence

Concern/Rationale:

• EC/DFO has no objections to an 8 year Water Licence renewal

term requested by BHPB, noting that the proposed term may extend beyond the end of active mining operations at the site. DFO/EC recommends that:

• A Water Licence renewal term of 8 years in support of BHPB’s

application request.

Page 30

Closing Remarks

• EC and DFO were pleased with BHPB’s WL application package

submitted to the WLWB, including the number of proposed SSWQOs.

• The Departments would like to acknowledge the professional

manner which BHPB and their consultants displayed throughout this WL application process and cooperative approach taken to work through outstanding issues.

• EC and DFO would like to also thank the WLWB for the
• pportunity to comment on BHPB’s Ekati Mine Type A WL renewal

application.

• EC and DFO respectfully request the opportunity to submit

additional written comments after the public hearing to address any new information that may be brought forward at the hearing.

Page 31

THANK YOU