Environment Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Dr. D. George Dixon]

I'm not going to comment on the appropriateness of government policy in that area, but in the majority of cases in which there is material being released from the industry into a receiving environment, it is up to industry to do the monitoring under the surveillance and audit of either the provincial or federal government. It has to do with the amount of human resources available within those ministries. Don't get the impression that the companies have a licence to run wild. From what I can see, the audit procedure is pretty rigorous, but there could be problems with it. I'm not a regulator.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plaît.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barker, I'd like to come back to the study conducted by your graduate students. It is mentioned on page 7 of the brief you presented. They analyzed three sectors where water contaminated by processes infiltrated groundwater.

In response to Mr. Woodworth, you confirmed what you had written in your report, and I quote:

The other two plumes created groundwater contamination on operator leases, which does not threaten surface water bodies.

That is basically what you told Mr. Woodworth. However, you added the following:

Unfortunately, the major toxicants, naphtenic acids, do not show significant biodegradation in these plumes. Attenuation appears to be by slow dilution with natural groundwater.

First, what then is the level of toxicity observed?

Second, when you talk about slow dilution, what do you mean by that?

Third, what are we then to conclude for the future, particularly with regard to that plume?

[Dr. James Barker]

Each plume is a bit unique. In fact, one plume is extending into an area that will be mined out, so it will be returned into the pond systems. Another area occurred at a pond that had a potential to impact surface water. The pond was reclaimed and that impact was eliminated, at least in the long term. There is one plume that is still out there that probably has tens of years before it will approach any surface water body. I'm not sure what the company is going to do, but one approach would be to continue to monitor that plume to see if in fact this slow attenuation reduces the toxicity effectively.

Dr. Dixon has worked on some of the toxicity studies. I'll ask him how toxic the water is.

[Dr. D. George Dixon]

I don't know what the concentration of naphthenic acids is in the particular plume he's talking about. If I were to know that, I could give you an estimate.

[A voice]

Around 20.

[Dr. D. George Dixon]

If it's about 20, the threshold of impact for naphthanate seems to be around 11 or 12 milligrams per litre. So 20 could probably have a marginal effect if it were released into an area where there were larval fish or something like that.

The other comment I should make is that naphthanates change in structure as they age. The ones that are very young and have only just come out of bitumen and have not been exposed to the environment and microbial degradation are more toxic than the ones that have weathered for three to five years. I'm assuming at 20 milligrams per litre it is new stuff that hasn't been subject to atmospheric degradation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

This has been very helpful, and I appreciate your testimony.

Are either of you aware of the research that Dr. Schindler just finished and testified on? He's completed some initial ones, although he fully endorses your call for a more comprehensive, expertly designed and executed year-round multi-year study.

[Dr. D. George Dixon]

It sounds like I plagiarized.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

He testified before us on the initial results of the studies he's been undertaking--he, Dr. Donahue, and others. He looked at snow deposition, and I think they also looked at fingerlings downstream of the plant. He found higher levels of the toxins in the downstream fish, to the extent I think that the fingerlings die. As I understand his testimony, he is suggesting that clearly shows there is leakage. Secondly, the results of his snow deposition are leading him to believe that a big part of the contaminant level may be coming from airborne.... He recommends a lot more intensified study on what's happening to the airborne emissions.

[Dr. D. George Dixon]

That's probably consistent with what I've said in terms of aerial transport and deposition.

We have found impacts on larval fish. In the environment we found impacts of PAHs and naphthanates in lab studies. I have not seen the data. Dr. Schindler was presenting preliminary data in his laboratory that he hasn't worked up and published yet. As I said, I think I'll probably give Dave a call and see if I can take a look at it.

The thing that most interests me there is that he's finding significant levels of metals, of mercury and arsenic. I have never found any indications of mercury, and very minimal indications that arsenic is a problem in either the water or sediment data that I've looked at. I want to know where that's coming from; that's what I'm basically interested in.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That seems to be the question. My understanding is that they're finding higher levels of those when you get to Fort Chip. We asked a number of questions, and one of them was on calcium. He didn't think it was coming from the plant but from somewhere else.

On the basis of those initial findings, he's suggesting that it may be appropriate to start taking a closer look at the airborne rather than the concentration on the tailings ponds.

[Dr. D. George Dixon]

Once again, there's no presumption that those airborne materials are coming effectively from the activity within the watershed. There's near-field air contamination and far-field; we simply don't know.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

There are still lots of unknowns.

If you were going to recommend the next round of science for, say, the next ten years, where would you recommend the concentration or federal funding sources be directed, for example?

[Dr. D. George Dixon]

This goes, to a certain extent, to some of the discussions you've already had. In terms of the ongoing research on the leases and remediating the activity, in my opinion, that is the responsibility of the companies. They're the ones who should be doing it, and they should be informing government of the work that's going on for collaborative activity.

I would suggest that the focus of federal government funding should be on what I call distill impacts, or impacts in the environment off the leases: what are the atmospheric implications, what are the issues associated with naturally occurring oil sands, and what are the appropriate long-term baseline studies that should be done in that area? So I would focus federal government funding in that area.

Perhaps I should declare one very, very old conflict of interest. Between 1980 and 1981, before I joined the University of Waterloo, I worked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Dr. James Barker]

Could I add another area to that?

I think the federal government's resources, as you've heard from Natural Resources Canada, were in a geological area. The aspect that we don't touch upon is the in situ producing areas. I think the survey has skills that could help the Alberta Geological Survey in that area.

So if you're going to do subsurface work, I would recommend that it be focused on the in situ areas.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

One of the significant issues that Dr. Donahue and Schindler raised is the capacity of the river to deal with increased loading, as the long-term forecasts already foresee major declines in the Athabasca River in the future.

So have you been taking a look at the level of contamination—even if it's small seepage or airborne contamination—and what will happen when the absorption capacity of the river is reduced?

[Dr. James Barker]

I haven't.

I don't know if Dr. Dixon has worked on the big picture of that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Is that an issue that should be looked at?

[Dr. D. George Dixon]

Yes, and I've looked at it.

In my “Key Concerns to be Addressed”, number one is:

Can the system accept additional loading from industrial activity or do the naturally occurring concentrations represent a maximum that should not be exceeded?

So I think that's essentially the same recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pursuing a couple of previous threads of discussion.

Dr. Barker, you've mentioned, either in your presentation or perhaps in a response to a question, that you and your teams are looking at some options for remediation in terms of potential impacts of process-affected water on groundwater.

Could you elaborate on what some of those options are?

[Dr. James Barker]

At the moment, we're thinking there are two options. One is to encourage the biological degradation of the naphthenic acids. So that would be trying to determine under what conditions they will degrade—and there is some existing research in that area—and then trying to create those conditions in the aquifer. For example, adding oxygen to the groundwater would be one example of a remedial technology.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

How soon do you think we might have more precise conclusions with respect to those two areas of study?