Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

What we heard summary report

Official title: Public Engagement on the Introduction to the Crown-Indigenous Working Group for the Potential Oil Sands Mining Effluent Regulations

Language selection:

Introduction

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is working with nine Indigenous communities on a Crown-Indigenous Working Group (CIWG). The CIWG is exploring options to manage mine water from oil sands mines in the Lower Athabasca Region in Northern Alberta. This includes work to develop potential regulations to allow releases of treated effluent to the Athabasca River.

The CIWG is working to assess whether releases are needed, and if so, on the development of the potential regulations. Potential regulations would set protective standards based on the best available scientific information and Indigenous knowledge.

In June 2023, ECCC published the Introduction to the Crown-Indigenous Working Group for the Potential Oil Sands Mining Effluent Regulations (Introductory Paper). The Introductory Paper was co-drafted with the CIWG. It provides an overview of the work and collaborative process of the CIWG, and an opportunity for early feedback. ECCC held a public comment period between June 20, 2023, and October 6, 2023.

To support the comment period, ECCC held virtual engagement sessions with:

ECCC held an extra session for Indigenous governments from the Northwest Territories (NWT) as they were unable to attend the first session because of forest fires in their regions. ECCC also met bilaterally with the Government of Alberta and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT).

During these sessions, ECCC and members of the CIWG gave an overview of the Introductory Paper. Participants had the opportunity to respond to discussion questions and ask questions during the sessions. Some participants also provided written feedback during the public comment period.

This document summarizes the written comments received and the engagement sessions. The perspectives summarized in this document do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Government of Canada or the CIWG. The document is organized by group, and by common themes that were raised. The report does not share the names of people or organizations that provided specific comments to protect privacy.

What we heard

Summary

Through the engagement, we heard from representatives from Indigenous governments, ENGOs, industry, academia, and members of the public. While a wide range of views was shared, some common themes across the groups were that most representatives: 

Indigenous Representatives

This section outlines key comments shared by Indigenous representatives. ECCC reached out to 49 Indigenous governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the NWT. Thirteen First Nations and Métis governments responded or took part in engagement sessions.  

Alternatives to Release

Several representatives expressed the need to consider alternatives to treatment and release. Alternatives mentioned include:

Indigenous Rights and Wellbeing

Representatives raised that Indigenous rights and well-being need to be considered and protected. They called for an assessment of cumulative effects, including impacts from seepage to avoid impacts to human and environmental health and Indigenous rights.

In addition, representatives raised that any approach to permitting releases must not further harm the river. One representative noted that an approach that focuses on “reducing threats” would be difficult to measure, quantify, and monitor. Representatives also raised that an Indigenous-led monitoring program to track water quality standards is very important. 

One representative recommended that the CIWG should set up an Indigenous elders’ circle. This circle would guide the CIWG’s approach to braiding Indigenous and Western science and knowledge.  

Transboundary Waters  

Representatives also stated that the work must respect transboundary water agreements such as the Alberta-NWT Transboundary Water Agreement. They also raised that the work should consider impacts beyond the Athabasca watershed. This includes potential impacts to fish, aquatic habitats, and drinking water in the Mackenzie Basin watershed.

Costs

Representatives asked how the CIWG is assessing the costs of different treatment technologies. One participant suggested that supplying tax incentives could encourage mines to implement alternative technologies. Other representatives asked about who will cover the costs of cleaning up oil sands operations.

Provincial, Federal, and Intergovernmental Collaboration

Representatives called for more coordination between the federal and provincial governments. This would support better information sharing and the development of solutions in areas of shared responsibility. They also expect other federal departments to actively engage in the regulatory development process.

Risks

Representatives raised concerns about the current risks posed by tailings ponds. Several people raised concerns about ongoing seepage and spills, like what happened at the Imperial Kearl Mine. They also raised fears of large dam breaches such as the Mount Polley tailings breach.

Representatives were worried by the list of substances of concern in oil sands mine water. They also raised the potential that substances in the tailings ponds have already leaked into the environment. One representative raised concerns about aerial deposits. Indigenous groups also raised concerns that the effects of climate change could worsen impacts from releases of oil sands mining effluent.

Future Engagement and Consultation

Several representatives stressed they have specific consultation protocols that need to be followed. They expect a more formal consultation process, including funding, before regulations are established. Representatives asked that ECCC travel to NWT to meet Indigenous governments in person. One representative asked that ECCC develop plain language summaries of future engagement resources.

Provinces and Territories

The following section outlines some key positions expressed by representatives from the Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT). ECCC informed Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the NWT governments and NWT co-management boards that ECCC had published the Introductory Paper and invited comments. The GNWT provided input before the release of this document.

Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT)

Representatives stated that, overall, they do not support the release of treated oil sands mine water. They will only support the release if science and data can prove that it is safe to do so. They also expressed that NWT Indigenous governments and organizations located near the Alberta border should be members of CIWG. They have an interest in alternatives to treatment and release and in reviewing the information gathered by the CIWG.

Representatives stated that there are still key knowledge gaps. They expect the Government of Canada to address them before developing the potential regulations. Gaps raised include:

ENGOs and Academic Representatives

The following section outlines key positions raised by representatives from ENGOs and academia. ECCC informed 20 ENGOs and academic representatives of the release of the introductory paper and invited comments. Fifteen representatives responded or participated in engagement sessions.

Alternatives to release

Multiple representatives asked for more information on the types of alternatives CIWG is considering.

They raised that the assessment of alternatives should include:

One respondent noted that removing salts from large volumes of water would be very energy intensive. This would result in brine requiring disposal.  

Rationale for Regulations

Several representatives asked for independent evidence showing that oil sands effluent release is needed and the best option to reduce risks. Representatives requested information from industry and government on why tailings have been allowed to grow to the current situation.

Some representatives noted the potential for stringent regulations could motivate mines to adopt stronger tailings treatment methods. Building treatment processes into operations now could support better monitoring and expertise before closure.

Non-Degradation Standards

Some representatives could support release regulations if they guarantee a standard of non-degradation or “no further exposure” to substances of concern. They defined non-degradation as keeping water quality unchanged from before development or baseline water conditions. Representatives suggested that the CIWG look at the standard in the Yukon’s Guide for Developing Water Quality Objectives and Effluent Quality Standards for Quartz Mining Projects. Representatives also recommended the United Nations Environmental Program’s Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (August 2020).

Some representatives expressed support for releases meeting drinking water quality. They noted there are no CCME drinking water standards or guidelines for some substances unique to oil sands tailings waste. Representatives called for consideration of the effects substances may have when mixed. They also noted effects from air emissions, agriculture runoff, and municipal waste releases.

Representatives called for any regulations to include a strong approach to monitoring. This included requests for long-term monitoring at the end-of-pipe and at multiple points downstream. Another suggested that an active regulatory approach needs to be taken. This includes stopping releases and notifying emergency managers if source waters are affected.

Jurisdiction

Representatives recommended that governments work together to ensure that both federal and provincial regulatory approaches are effective and well informed. Representatives were also confused about the division of powers related to tailings management.

One respondent stressed that the federal government should take a broad role in oil sands tailings management and reclamation. This is due to potential environmental risks to federal responsibilities including fish-bearing waters, migratory birds, and Wood Buffalo National Park. Representatives were concerned that Alberta may set regulatory requirements that are less stringent than federal standards.

Representatives expressed that ECCC should assess and avoid potential transboundary impacts. They noted the Alberta-NWT Mackenzie River Basin Bilateral Water Management Agreement needs to be respected.

Information Sharing

Multiple representatives asked that information on tailings management be made publicly available. This includes:

Reclamation

Several representatives called for a full, science-based end-of-mine-life tailings reclamation strategy. Such plans need to ensure the land is useable and accessible by Indigenous peoples. One representative called for no new approvals for mining projects until industry develops full reclamation plans.

One respondent stated that water release is needed for reclamation. Otherwise, the sites will need to be maintained as active mine sites after closure. They raised that reducing total volumes and salt levels will make closure and reclamation easier.  

One representative raised concerns with the use of water capped tailings end pit lakes in the final reclamation landscape.  Concerns raised included:

Costs and economic feasibility

Several representatives raised that industry should pay for the full costs of tailings reclamation and remediation. One representative expressed that regulations should not be based on industry preferences related to technical and economic feasibility. They should protect water quality, wildlife, and communities.

Risks and risk assessment

Representatives raised concerns about the risks of dam failures in the status quo. Risks grow with dam height and amounts of disturbed land, which both increase with volumes stored. One respondent noted there are difficulties for industry to staff positions needed to maintain the safety of dams.

Several representatives raised concerns about seepage and other uncontrolled water releases. One respondent suggested that stringent regulations would mitigate risks by allowing for safe, controlled releases. Others suggested that the federal government should strengthen enforcement of the Fisheries Act and enhance Indigenous participation in enforcement.

Representatives raised concerns of extreme weather events due to climate change. High rainfall events could increase volumes in tailings ponds and increase risks of dam failure. Higher temperatures increase the toxicity of some chemicals due to more rapid chemical reactions. Higher temperatures can also lead to lower oxygen levels in river water. This could make it harder for the river to deal with pollutants. Climate change is also expected to increase drought conditions which would need to be considered when developing release limits.

Several representatives called for a risk assessment of oil sands tailings ponds as recommended in the 2016 Report of the joint World Heritage Commission/International Union for the Conservation of Nature Reactive Monitoring mission to Wood Buffalo National Park. The risk assessment should assess risks from climate change, gaps in monitoring, and reclamation options.

Representatives recommended that decisions on effluent release be informed by an independent body. This will ensure they are based on the best available information and in the public's best interest. Several representatives also recommended doing an independent health assessment to understand current health conditions and potential impacts of release.

Substances

Representatives raised that substances may have increased toxicity and risks to aquatic and human life when mixed. One respondent expressed that, because Naphthenic Acids (NAs) are a primary source of acute toxicity in OSPW, ECCC, and Health Canada should prioritize a risk assessment of oil sands NAs.

Representatives raised concerns related to the high and increasing salt levels in oil sands tailings. One requested a review of low-carbon, best-available salt removal technologies. Key concerns raised included:

Indigenous rights

Several representatives raised that oil sands tailings management should be guided by Indigenous governments and principles of reconciliation. Representatives raised that decisions should be aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA), including provisions related to free, prior, and informed consent. 

Industry

The following section outlines some of the key positions expressed by industry representatives. Representatives from Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources and Imperial Oil Limited attended the engagement session. Mining Association of Canada (MAC), Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil Limited, and Pathways Alliance provided written submissions.

Regulatory certainty

Industry has called for clear timelines on the regulatory development process, including key milestones, and increased engagement with industry. Representatives were concerned about further delays. They called for a regulation by 2025 to help advance plans for mine closure. They stated that delays to the regulation would require maintaining existing tailings facilities until the end of mine life. This would lead to decades of delays to reclamation and put capital decisions at risk.

Risk of status quo

Representatives stated that the continued storage of water on site is not sustainable. They recommended the CIWG study the impacts and risks of the status quo of storing large volumes of water permanently. Industry stressed that to prevent the need for new tailings facilities and to enable reclamation, oil sands mines must greatly reduce the amount of water stored on site. Rain and snow will continue to collect after mining operations cease and existing storage will be exceeded. Industry emphasized that long-term storage and recycling of water has the consequence of increasing the salt content of the water stored.  

Alternatives to release

Representatives expressed that available alternatives to water release would not reduce volumes enough for progressive reclamation and closure. They stated that the only way to achieve required reductions is to treat and release water. Industry noted that returning water to the watershed is a water conservation best practice. Industry argued that slowing water build up reduces impacts to water quality from multiple re-uses and allows for earlier reclamation. Representatives noted they have already applied the most viable approaches to improve water management. This includes regional cooperation and techniques like deep well disposal and in situ reservoirs. They stressed that industry input should be considered in the review of alternatives.

Representatives stated that governments have approved oil sands mining projects with closure plans that state that water release is key to reclamation and closure of the sites. Submissions referenced (among others):

Regulatory scope

Industry expressed concerns that the potential regulations may go beyond the Fisheries Act scope and take a prescriptive approach to how mines must manage and treat water. This could limit mines to using only prescribed technologies and limit innovation. They cite theMetal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations as a best practice for regulations based on outcomes that are consistent with Treasury Board policy. Industry called for ECCC and the CIWG to apply approaches used in other effluent regulations. One suggestion was to assess the best available technologies economically achievable. This is to ensure the regulation sets conditions that are achievable using existing and proven treatment technologies. One representative recommended using whole effluent toxicity testing to make safe release guidelines given that there are currently no standard limits for NAs.

Provincial and federal collaboration

Representatives suggested the process should recognize past discussions with federal and provincial governments that stressed treated mine water release. Some of these discussions date back to the early 1990s. To build on existing knowledge and avoid duplication or overlap with provincial jurisdiction, provincial policies and tools must be recognized and considered while making a federal effluent regulation. Representatives suggested CIWG should use the Alberta Science Team reports and existing COSIA research.

Information sharing

Industry noted that they have provided recommendations for CIWG’s consideration on:

Water types and volume

Industry emphasized that most other sectors are allowed to release water to the environment. Industry also stressed that while a few substances in oil sands mine water are specific to oil sands mining, (e.g. naphthenic acids), most are not unique and occur in other types of wastewater. Industry expressed that ECCC should consider including limits for total suspended solids and pH.

One representative stated that the Introduction Paper understates the volumes of water that need to be released. Currently, it only looks at surface water in tailings facilities and does not include water trapped in sand and dams. Industry noted that this is a large volume. There is no existing requirement for mines to report on these volumes of water. As a result, such data is less consistent across operations. Representatives stressed that most water that will need to be released will be due to rain and snow. Industry also recommended defining water streams to clarify the regulation development process and to enable alignment with provincial frameworks.

Benefits of release

Industry listed several key benefits to permitting release of treated oil sands. One was that regulations would allow mines to apply treatment technologies to meet and/or accelerate reclamation activities and deliver on commitments in regulatory approvals. Regulations would also allow mines to keep clean water clean by mitigating mixing of waters on site. Regulations would also allow mines to avoid building more water storage facilities and improve operation and maintenance of existing water infrastructure.

Public

The following section outlines some of the key comments expressed by members of the public throughout the engagement period.

No release

Several representatives opposed releases of effluent even if it is treated. Concerns were raised regarding potential impacts to land, water, and Indigenous rights. Some representatives expressed that there should be no oil sands operations expansion to avoid further accumulation of tailings, until a full reclamation plan is complete.

Terminology

Members of the public asked that ECCC share clear and transparent definitions of key terms used throughout engagement processes. These include:

One respondent expressed concerns related to shifts in terms used by governments and industry. For example, the terms “sludge”, “mature fine tailings” or “fluid tailings”.  

Animal welfare

Some members of the public raised concerns related to the treatment of animals. This includes concerns about the use of acute and sublethal tests to assess water quality. They stressed that humane, non-invasive, methods of monitoring oil sands effluent should be used. Several members also mentioned Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 changes that encourage replacing, reducing, or refining toxicity testing on animals.

Seepage

Representatives also raised concerns related to current releases, seepage, and alert notices related to spills and releases. Members of the public called for studies into the impacts of existing seepage and spills on water quality. One respondent expressed that the production of more tailings and new or expanded oil sands projects should be halted. A full reclamation plan for the oil sands region is developed before more tailings are produced. 

Costs

Members of the public suggested ECCC apply the polluter pays principle so that industry pays for the full costs of tailings remediation. Representatives also suggested that, given the large profits made by the oil sands industry, there should be no technical or economic barriers to treating tailings. 

Substances

One respondent suggested that any oil sands effluent regulations will need to consider total suspended solids such as clay. They stressed that oil sands tailings include a notable amount of clay which, if released, could cause impacts to fish, insects, and other animals.

Information sharing

Several members of the public called on ECCC to share detailed information to support the public’s understanding of potential regulations, including:

Next steps

ECCC thanks all those who joined in the engagement process on the Introductory Paper. ECCC will consider all the feedback in the next steps on the regulatory framework and the CIWG work plans. ECCC will continue to hold bilateral meetings with Indigenous governments and other parties that wish to engage.

ECCC plans to publish a discussion paper with information on components of a regulatory framework in 2024. If you would like to be engaged, please contact Mining and Processing Division at sb-os@ec.gc.ca.  

Page details

Date modified: