Department of Justice Canada Minist?re de la Justice Canada Swfiity Classification: Prairie Region Region des Prairies Telephone: 780 495 2968 EPCOR Tower, 300,lO423 - 101 Street, Tour EPCOR, 300, 10423 rue 101, Edmonton, Facsimile: (730) 495-3491 Edmonton' AB T5H OE7 AB T5H OE7 Internet' kirk.lambrecht@justice.gc.ca Our File: 2- 143230 Name dossier.' Your file: Vatre dossier: August 3 2012 BY FAX (613) 957-0941 and Email: Joint Review Panel Secretariat Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, ON KIA 0H3 Attention: Secretariat, Joint Review Panel RE: Jackpine Mine Expansion Project - Joint Review Panel On June 4, 2012, the Joint Review Panel announced the beginning of a comment period on the additional information provided by the proponent, Shell Canada Energy. The Panel asked for all comments on the additional information in writing by August 3, 2012. In response to this opportunity of comment, I attach responses of the following Federal Government Departments: Transport Canada, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada. Yours truly, Kirk N. Larnbrecht, Q.C. General Counsel Prairie Region Department of Justice Canada Encl. Canada Fisheries and Oceans P?ches et Oceans Canada Canada -Prairies Area Secteur des Prairies Edmonton Office Bureau de Edmonton 1028 Parsons Rd. SW 1028, chemin Parsons Sud~Ouest Edmonton (Athena) T6X OJ4 Edmonton (Alberta) TSX OJ4 Tel: (780) 495-4220 Tel:(780) 495-4220 Fax; (780) 49543606 495-8606 July 30, 2012 Jim Dilay Chair, Joint Review Panel Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 160 Elgin 'Street, 22nd Floor, Place Bell Canada, Ottawa, ON, KIA 0H3 Energy Resources Conservation Board, 9915 Franklin Avenue, Provincial Building, 2nd Floor, Fort McMurray, AB, T9H 2K4 Subject: Fisheries and Oceans Canada's reply to the Joint Review P'anel's June 4, 2012 request for public comments on Additional Information for Sheil's proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion Project The letter below is Fisheries and Oceans Canada'.s (DFO) assessment on the adequacy of the May 15, 2012 information. provided by Shell Canada on the proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion project. ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL ON PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL GAPS AND CONCE Aboriginal Concerns DFO previously acknowledged that Aboriginal representatives have in-dentified concerns related. to the concepts outlined in Part of the Panel's Terms of Reference. Recent Jackpine Mine Expansion aboriginal consultation by the Government of Canada, including DFO, identified generai lack of satisfaction with the consultation 'processes undertaken by the Proponent and the Crown. DFO expects that those groups will review the additional in'fjo.rmatio.n. and identify outstanding concerns directly to the Panel. Cumulative Effects As DFO has previously expressed, uncertainty remains as to how the proposed No Net Loss plans will compensate for indirect and cumulative impacts to the fisheries resource and whether surrounding habitatsare as productive as before. The effects to fisheries productivity may include habitats in proximity to, as well as of, the proposed development including the Athabasca River Delta. Shell has undertaken an assessment of potential effects of the project, in combination with other developments, on sediment and water quaiity and an assessment of incremental and cumulative effects on the Peace-Athabasca Delta. Although the information provided by Shell is valuable DFO is of the view that this assessment may require additional field monitoring and cooperation at a regional level amoung all stakeholders. Pending such a regional assessment, however, DFO believes that the potential for cumulative environmental effects on the Athabasca River Delta remain uncertain. Pre-Industrial Case DFO understands that the Joint Review Panel"s Terms of Reference with respect to cumulative effects assessment directs the Panel to consider a pre--industrial case that takes into account effects that may have already been experienced and to consider future foreseeable 'projects or activities as of the issuance of the Panel 's Terms of _Reference. DFO applauds S.he'll's effort to consider Pre-Industrial Case (PIC) in their assessment and, considering the limited information available, appreciate the results; however, DFO is of the opinion that the assessment could have considered Traditional Environmental Knowledge from Aboriginal People. Future DFO is of the View that the requested additional "information was provided by Shell and the assessment of potential cumulative effects on fish, fish habitat and other aquatic resources of all operating, approved and applied for in--situ., as well as mineable oil sands projects, and other projects. such as quarries, satisfy information requirements related to the Joint Review Panel's Terms of Reference. Qonclusion Considering that previously identified gaps were addressed in the Shell's submission fi'om May 15,2012, DFO is of the view that, with respect to its mandate conceming fish and fish habitat, there is sufficient information to proceed to a public hearing. DFO will. be maintaining correspondence with Shell to clarify details associated with the development of the No Net Loss plan and other fish and fish habitat considerations. Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Makowecki, Manager Northem Alberta District and Oil Sands Major Projects in Edmonton at 730-495-3889. rad Parker Director, Prairies Area Cc Brian Makoweclci, Edmonton Marek Janowicz, Edmonton Smart Dean, Ottawa Natural Resources Ftessouroos ooturelles Canada Canada Juiy 31, 2-012 CEAR 11510-05-59540 VIA EMAIL: Joint Review Panel Jackpine Mine Expansion Project Canadian Environmental Assessme-nt.Agency 160 Eigin Street, 22"" Floor, Place Bea: Canada Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OH3 RE: Natural Resources. Canac_la's Submission to the Joint Review Panel for the Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project Attention: Jim Dilay, Chair, Joint Review Panel This letter is in response to the Joint Review Panel's June 4, 2012 announcement, inviting interested parties to review the additional information provided to the Panel by Shel! Canada on May 16', 2012, and to provide comments on the adequacy of this information. has reviewed the additional information provided by Sheil Canada and is of the view that their responses have adequately addressed the Supplemental Information Requests submitted bytne Panel of interestto Natural Resources Canada. However, have two rninorcomrnents, wh'ioh' are presented in the appreciates the opportunity to comment on Sheil Canada's additional information. Shouid you require additional information or clarification on' the comment provided by please contact Shelley Bali, Senior Environmental Assessment Officer at 613~995--2848 or Sheliey.BalI@nrcan.gc.ca. -Sincerely, 4 . ix nix? . Mark Pearson Director General, External Relations Natural Resources Canada Dr. Hassan Hamza, Directoreeneral, Canmet ETC Devon Tim Sheldan, Director General, Canadian Forest Service Donna Kirkwood, Director Generai, Geological Survey of Canada C.C.I Resources Natural Resources Canada's Submission to the Joint Review Panel for the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project Comments on additionat information provided by Shell Canada has reviewed the additional information provided by Shell Canada and is of the view that they have adequately addressed the additional information request submitted by the Panel on January 30., 2012. does have two observations regarding _additional information that Shell provided. 1) in Tailings Table 38-? (page 3-119), Shel! Canada has iisted the percentage of total fines that are sequestered annually (column heading Annual Fines Seq. as 114%. There is no explanation provided for the greater than 100% sequestration; the value of 114% cannot be expiained by rounding errors. 2) The table captions for Tables 38~2 and 38-3 (pp. 3-120 and 3-121) appear with the wrong tables. HI Transports Canada Canada Programs Eiranch Groupe dies 3rd Floor, 344 Edmonton 344, rue Edmont-an 32 etage Winnipeg, Manitoba R38 OPS Winnipeg Manitoba RSC G-P5 July 32, 2012 norms; 7734039 Jim Dilay Chair, Joint Review Panel Jackpine Mine Expansion Project Canadian. Environmental Assessmant Agency 150 Elgln Street, 22"" Floor Place Bell Canada Ottawa, Ontarip, Alberta lr(1A Oi-l3 Sub]-ect: Sufficie-nay Review - Jackpine Mine Expansion Project Dear: Mr. Dilay in response to the Joint Review Panel (JRP) public. notice invitation -dated June 4, 2012, Transport Canada is providing, the "following comments on the adequacy of the additional information She]? Canada Energy's (Shell) provided in response to iha Joint Review Panel'-s (JRP) Supplemental information Request'. Transport Canada is the federal de-pertinent responsible for most" of the and goals of the Government of Canada. it ensurep that air, marine, mad and rail transportation are safe, secure, efficient and envirpnmantatly responsible. with respect to the J-ackpine Mine Expansion Prolect propospd by Shell, Canada's mandate is to ensure the public right of navigation under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). Transport Canada may have to issue ap'prpvals under the NWPA that would permit this project to be carried out in whole or in pan. and thus will participate in the environmental assessment prpcess as a Federal Authority-under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. In consideration of the current mfarmatipn provided by Shell in its Envlronmantal Imp-act Staiement and its responses to Supptemental information Requests including the dopurnent Submission of to the Join: Review Panel, dated May 1-6, 2912, the approvats to be issued under the NWPA will likely be required: o- An approval under subseption 5(2) or a prohibition under section 222 requiring a Governor in Council Proclamation of Exemption under section 23. for the proposed diversion of the Masks-g River Canad'?'. - An approval under subsection 5(2) for the proposed Muskeg River Diversion Alternative Mine Pisn - An approvai under subsection 5(3) for the proposed bridgo over the Muskeg River to access the north overburden dump - An aoprovai under subsection 30(2) for the proposed modifi-cations to the existing Muskeg River mine water intake system As such, Transport Canada has identified the following gaps in the information received: With respect -to SIR #27 f) on navigation and specific activities affecting navigation, the requested Shell to ensure in its updated cumulative effects assessment, it takes into account influences such as: overali water ciimaie trends, water diversion, natural river fluotuafion, sand movement and dredging. Shelia updated cumuiativs effects assessment in Appendixz Section 3.3 does not inciude consideration of potontiai impacts on navigation as per the JRP's request. White Sheli's updated cumuiative effects assessment in Appendix 2 Section 3.3 includes consideration of some -of the influences, it does not consider the impacts on navigation. Transport Canada looks forward to continued dialogue and cooperation with Shot! in order to obtain additionai clarification and detaiied construction plans of the proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion Project. Sincereiy, Harvey Nikkei Regions! Director Programs, Prairie and Northern Region c: Dale Kirkland Jo-Anne" Foy .Environmant finvironnernant Canada Canada Prairie and Narthern Ragion #200, 4999 - 93"' Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T68 2X3 August 2, 2012 EC fiie no; 4-194-to-316035 GEAA reference no; 10435-59540 Jim Diiay Chair, Joint Review Panel Estabiished to review the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project Joint Review Pane? Canadian Environmenlai Assessment Agency 160 Elgln Street, 22"' Floor, Place sen Canada Cittawa. Ontario KM OHS Energy Resources C-onservation Board 9915 -Frankiin Avenue, Provincial Building, From Fort McMurray, Athena 'ft'-JH 2K4 RE: Shell C:anada's Jackpine Mine Expansion Project Adequacy review of shell Canada's 15, 2912 updated infarmation Cm June 4, 2012. the Joint Review Panel (JRP) requested intervenor comment on the adequacy of infarmation provided on May -15, 2.012, by Shell Canada in response to the JRP's January 30 Suppiementai Re-quasi (SIR). For matters relating to our mandate, Environment Canada (EC) is of the opinion that there is sufficient informaticn to proceed to the: hearings, Hcrwever, while $heil Canada has provided comprehensive responses to many-at iha JRP's 3iRs, several matters wit! require further discussion to fully understand petentiai. projesi affects and ensure suitable mitig-atior: can be implemented. Attachment 1 summarizes these matters to assist parties in their preparation for the hearings. For "clarity, Attachment 2 summarizes matters raised by EC: in our December 16. 2011 SIR document flied with the JRP, but not reflected. in the January 30 to Shell. EC wit! be seeking further detaii on these matters at the hearings. in the meantime, we remain available ta further explain our concerns with Canada or the JRP. - {antacid Regionai Director - 3' Attachments: Attachment reviaw of Shell Canada's May 15. 2012 information Canada" Attachment 2: Summary of EC's outstanding issues from the December 16. 2013 adequacy review ATTACHMENT 1 REVIEW OF SHELL 15. ?012 INFORMATION INTRODUCUON In September 2011, the Minister of the Environment and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) announced the Joint Review Panel (JRP) for the She-li Jaokpine Mine Expansion (JPME). hearings. On December 16,- at the request of theJRP, EC filed 1'4 Supplemental Information Request (SlRs) outiining additional information that the department requires to fulfiil our mandate as it relates to this project. {in January 30, the JRP amalgamated SIR requests from irrtervenors into a common SIR package' for Shell Canada. Shel! Canada repiled on May 15 with a comprehensive dooL;rnent'_ addressing the JRP Si.Rs. White EC is of the opinion that, for matters within our mandate. the new information filed by Shell Canada in conjunction with the exiting environmental impact statement (EES) documents is sufficient for the JRP to conduct hearings; however, there are several -matters where the methods of analysis or inherent assumptions will require further discussion to quantify potentiei impacts and ensure appropriate mitigation is implernenteci. WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY JRP SR Determination of Jaokpine Mine Expansion Projest Effects in its December 16, 2011 adequacy review, EC argued that insufficient information has been provided to evaluate significance of oumutative effects to species at risk, migratory birds and wetlands, suggesting that the assessment be augmented to took at additional criteria related to changes in naturai range of variation. EC requested Shell provide habitat loss estimates for Jaokpine Mine Expansion independent from other proposed andior approved mines. The JRP in its January 30, 2012 Supplemental Information Request to Shel! Canada, made the foitowing request: In order to determine the significance of effects from the Jockpine Mine Expansion Project, the Panel requires information on effects of the Jaokpine Mine Project only, without inclusion of the Pierre River Mine Project. The environmental consequences for some oomponenis of the E18 were determined from the effects of both the Jookpins and Pierre River Projects oombinedt To determine the effects of only the Jaokpine Mine Expansion .Projsot, the environmental consequences shouid be oaloulated for each Key .lndioator Resource (KIR) using the effects within the Jsokpina Mine Expansion LSA or some such reasonable spatial area as determined and rationoiized by the proponent. The Panel requests that Shell: - provide the Jeokpine Minefiirpansion Projeofs effects for the above sections' KIRS. provide the environments! oonsequsnoss for each KIR of the Jookpins Mine -Expansion Project. Separation of Effects Although Shall Canada did separate the mine effects in its updated responses, it has, in a number of instances, oornhined the effects of the JPME Project with the existing and approved Jaoirp-ine Mine - Phase 'i Projeoi Ecosite Phases and Wetiencis Types to be Cleared and Reclaimed in the Local Study Area). It is unclear whether this approach was used I when evaluating the effects of the JPME Project on all terrestrial indicators species at risk, including woodland caribou and wood bison). Although un-cierstanding combined effects is important, this approach does not allow for an accurate assessment of additional habitat loss as a result of the expansion project alone (above that already approved for the Jackpine Mine Phase 1 Project), or the determination of appropriate mitigation measures for any additional habitat loss. EC's Position EC suggests that, in order to more accurately assess the- potential effects of the JPME Project on habitat and terrestrial indicators, Shell Canada be prepared to provide clarity on where Jackpine Mine - Phase 1 effects have been combined with potential effects of the JPME Project and to be able to quantify the extent of the incremental effects of the JPME project. Keg' Resource Indicator -- Woodland Caribou Shell Canada evaluated the direct' effects of the JPME Project on woodland caribou habitat. Milcisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) traditional knowledge indicates that winter caribou habitat occurs north of Keari Lake in the JPME Project Local Study Area (LSA) (MCFN indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for JPME, PRM, and RCL 2012). The JPME Project also occurs adjacent to provincially designated woodland caribou range and core habitat identified by -the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations (ACFN Integrated Knowledge and Use Report for the JPME and PRM 2011). Shell Canada did not evaluate indirect effects of the JPME Project on caribou populations that occur in adjacent core caribou habitat and provincially designated caribou ranges. Specifically, wolves, bears and other predators that occur in the LSA may be displaced into adjacent core caribou habitat and range during Project construction and operations, resulting in increased predation pressure on caribou populations occupying these ranges. The Richardson caribou range occurs approximately 5 km northeast of the LSA. and the population in this range is not considered self--sustaihing. EC's Position While Shell Canada evaluated the direct effects of the JPME Project on woodland caribou. suggests that Shell Canada be prepared to discuss the indirect effects of the JPME Project and' irrdirect.oumulative effects of other disturbances (including other oil sands mines) on woodland caribou populations in adjacent core habitat and designated ranges. Kev Resource Indicator Wood fiison Shell Canada modeled wood bison habitat throughout the LSA and Regional Study Area (RSA) and discusses environmental consequences within these study areas, However. traditional knowiedge indicates that core bison range is currently largely.restric'ted to the we-st-eide of the Athabasca River (north of and including the Pierre River Mine LSA), as' well -as the lower Firebag River corridor on the east. side of the Athabasca River (ACFN Integrated Knowledge and Use Report for ihe JPME and PRM 2611, MCFN indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for PRM, and RC-L 2012). in addition to modeling habitat potential in the LSA and throughout the RSA and determining potential JPME Project and cumulative effects throughout these areas, it is important to understand the direct and indirect effects of the JPME Project (irrciudmg the proposed compensation lake) and other cumulative disturbances on bison in their current core range, as these results may differ substantially from those presentedl by Shell Canada for the LSA and particularly the RSA. For example, the MCFN indicate that the JPME Project is likely to disturb or destroy the range and possibly core h_a_bit_at of wood bison west of the Athabasca River (MCFN Indigenous Knowledge and Use Report for JPME, PRM, and RCL 2012). EC's Position EC suggests that Shell Canada he prepared to quantify the effects. of the JPME Project and other cumulative disturbances on wood bison within their current core range as identified through traditional knowledge. JRP SIR 11: Cumulative Effects in its December 16, 2011 adequacy review', EC suggested that Shell has not met the TOR because it has provided neither a PIC, nor a PDC revised to include all projects disclosed prior to issuance of the TOR. The JRP in its January 30, 2012 SIR to Shell Canada, made the following request: At present, Shells assessment does not include a p.re-industrial baseline. Shell did include some futrire foreseeable projects and activities, however additional' projects and activities have been disclosed and/or occurred since the cumulative effects assessment was completed, and thus an update is required to account for these projects. Shell provided a cumulative effects assessment for both the Jackpirle Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mine Projects combined. If any KIR is effected by the Jaokplne Mine Expansion Project and not by the Pierre River Mine Project and the outcome of any cumulative effects assessment would change as a result of this distinction, the Panel would require such information. The Panel understands that Shell has committed to updating the cumulative effects assessment. The Panel requests that Shell: - update the cumulative" effects assessments to take into account the above provisions. Terrestrial and Indicators Although Shell Canada has provided a PIC and has calculated changes between the PIC and the 2012 Base Case, it does not evaluate the environmental consequence of changes to key terrestrial indicators habitat for species at risk) relative to this (either for -the 2012 Base Case or planned development case instead, when determining the environmental consequence of cumulative effects, Shell Canada compares the PDC tothe 2012 Base Case without reference to previous changes. The determination of environmental consequence of cumulative effects should include a consideration of past disturbances and be based on an evaluation of changes from the PIC to the PDC. This approach would correctly assess the cumulative effects of activities and disturbances that have already occurred, as well as those that are planned to occur, in the RSA. EC's Position EC suggests that Shell Canada be prepared to quantify the environmental consequences of cumulative effects based on changes from the PIC to the P130 for key terrestrial vegetation and wildlife indicators, In absence of receiving this information prior to the hearing, EC is prepared to, as Shell Canada has stated in its January 18, 2012 letter to the JRP, test the methodology of shells EIA during the hearing process. Caribou l~lahita_t In its evaluation of cumulative changes in wildlife habitat from the PIC to the 2012 Base Case, Shell Canada indicates that the decline in high suitability habitat for woodland caribou is of low magnitude (pg. 3-40). However, in Table 1.34 in Appendix (pg. 18), Shell Canada indicates that there has been a 40% reduction in high quality habitat he) for caribou in the 2012. Base Case relative to 'the PK3. The magnitude criteria developed by Shell Canada (Eecernber 2007, Section 1.3.6) indicate that a represents a high magnitude effect. Therefore, it is unclear how Shell Canada defines a 40% loss of high quality habitat as a low magnitude effect. EC's Position EC suggests that Shell Canada be prepared to clarify the magnitude of cumulative habitat change for woodland caribou in the 2012 Base Case relative to the PIC. SIR 17: Waterfowl EC had no spe.ci.fic SIR related to this issue in its December 18, 201? adequacy review. The JRP in its January 30, 20-l2 SIR to Shell Canada, "made the following request: Shell states that ducks and geese are CEMA Priority 2 species and KIRS for the LSAS. Baseline surveys were conducted by Shell for waterfowl {ducks and goose). However, the EIS contains no waterfowl In their technical review, the ACFN had concerns regarding the absence of waterfowl KIR, as waterfowl are harvested .13 aboriginal people. The Panel requests that--Shell: clarify and provide a rationale as to why a waterfowl KIR was not used in the EIS. in its response, Shell Canada indicated that "horned.grebe was considered a surrogate species for waterfowl in general and 'thus selected as a (pg. EC notes that horned grebe was selected as a KIR only after requests by EC to evaluate the effects of the JPME Project on all federally listed species at risk. EC also notes that the nesting habitat requirements of horned grabs differ from most ducks and geese, so it is unclear how hornecl grebe can he considered a surrogate species for evaluating effects on waterfowl nesting habitat use. EC's Position EC suggests that, in order to evaluate effects on waterfowl nesting habitat use, shall Canada be prepared to provide additional rationale as to why waterfowl was -not selected es KIR and how horned grabs represents a surrogate species for evaluating effects on waterfowl nesting habitat. WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUALITY MODELLING JRP SIR 36 and 37 Climate Change: Influence on Water Quality In its December 16, 2011 adequacy review, EC stated that the assessment of future climate change on -the Project did -not consider the full range of predicted precipitation levels from global climate models. The JRP in its January 30, 2012 SIR to Shell Canada, made the following request: The Alberta Environment Terms of Reference require the environmental assessment to include informs lion about e-cological processes and natural forces that are expected to produce changes in environmental conditions (eg. forest fires, flood or drought conditions). Consistent with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Panel will also consider -any change to the Project that may be caused by the environment. The Panel finds that information related to these environmental ohanges isn-of provided in the EIA and that additional .information is required. Discuss how the Project would be affected by stochastic large scale disturbances and projected human caused disturbances as described below and how the Project is equipped to handle such events. The Panel requests that Shell: - provide an assessment on how th_e Project may be sensitive to forest fires. provide an assessment on potential drought _in the area and how the Project m-ay be sensitive -to drought. Explain how the trends in air temperature and precipitation were used to estimate the expected range of future streamflows in the Athabasca River that will be used for the water requirements of the Project. is provide an assessment of potential effects to the Project from possible flooding in the region. The Panel requests that Shell 'Canada: - indicate how changes in climate, particularly rainfall and recharge rates might impact revegetation and recolonisation in the application case as presented in Table 7.541 for ecosite phases in the LSA {Volume 5, Section 7. 5.. 2. 2, p. 7-62). Further discuss anyimpacts to wetlands and wildtife habitat. indicate how changes in climate, ,oarticularly rainfall and recharge rates might impact revegetation and recolonisation in the Planned Development Case .in Table (Volume 5, Section 7. 5.2.2, p. 7-69) for regional -land cover classes -in the RSA. Further discuss any impacts to wetlands and wildlife habitat and incorporate this Shell Canada states that "given the uncertainty surrounding future clirnate.change scenarios, Shell Canada will use monitoring and adaptive management to account for alternative futures, increased vegetation growth, or increased vegetation stress, with specific regional patterns and timing associated with both." (Section 3-'l 'l 7, May 2012). Shell Canada's use of a restricted range of ciimate model seasonal precipitation outputs underestimates potential precipitation changes predicted by currentmodels by a fact of 2 to 3 foid. Given that the proponent -has indicated that a 10% increase in precipitation -could trigger-a 400% increase in stream flow, Shell Canada's use of a restricted range of modeled precipitation significantly underestimates the range in contaminant concentrations and predicted biological effects. Simiiarly, Shell_Canada's use of extrapolated trends of recorded annual air temperature at the Fort McMurray airport station increases the uncertainty of environmental -changes linked to future temperature extremes. Shot! Canadais use of a restricted range of climate change assumptions affects key xiariables, such as rnocleied stream flows and contaminant dilutions, and thereby reduces the range and magnitude of predicted environments! effects, while increasing the uncertainty of the effects predictions. C's Position EC suggests that shall Canada be prepared to elaborate on the monitoring and adaptive management plans to be implemented to maintain site operationswithin the range of impacts predicted by their numerical modelling. SIR 39 and 41 - Mature Fine Tailings (MFT)-free Pit: Lake' Alternative In its December 16, 2011 adequacy review, EC stated that the pit take models should be rerun to present the benefits of removing MFT from pit lakes. EC also states the potential for leachate generation from the dryiand disposal area is also untested in the current models. The JRP in its January 30, 2012 SIR to Shell Canada, made the following request: Shell proposed using TT drying, MF centrifuge and NST to' comply with Directive 074. None of the technologies proposed have been commercially proven. Discuss the contingency plan if the proposed technology or technologies cannot comply with Directive 074. Shell states, . .ali legacy MFT at the Jackpine Mine Expansion will be centrifuged, dried and placed in dumps or in-pit for final disposal. Table 2-6 shows the Jactrpine Mine Expansion MF balance based on adjustment made for the-Muskeg River Diversion Alternative ll/line plan." an Provide the design parameters used for MF centrifuge in this plan, including but not limited to: solids content and sand to fines ratio of centrifuge feed, centrifuge process used, and solids content and strength development of centrifuged cake.- - Provide a table showing the projected annual MF centrifuged cake volumes, area needed and area available for MFT centrifuged cake placement. Provide the placement plan for MF centrifuged cake, as well as a map indicating the locations. Shell Canada indicated that they would use storage within pit.lakes until 2037 at whichtime they will be moved to external dumps. Shell Canadafs May 2012 updated modeling of pit lake water quality indicated exceedances of Alberta's water quality criteria in pit takes in 2065 and 2165 for selected metals, some P_Ai-is. and nutrients-. When Shell Canada appiied an updated chronic effects benchmark (CEB) approach. (see 26 below), they concluded that only cadmium in pit lakes exceeded the CEB limits. EC concludes although CEBs are based on sensitive biological changes in lab tests, there are limitations to the CEB approach since chernicai mixtures are not evaluated and CEBs are based on relatively short term exposures. EC's Position EC remains concerned with Shell Canada 's ability to predict and control effluent quality from the end pit lakes. EC suggests that Shell Canada be prepared to elaborate on contingency measures available to ensure effluent 'meets applicable water quality guidelines. 26 -- Water Quality -- Updated Chronic Effects Benchmarks (CEB) In its December 16.. 2011 adequacy review, EC stated that some of the chronic effects benchmarks used. in the EIS did not incorporate appropriate safety factors. The JRP in its January 30, 2012 SR to -Shell Canada. made the following request: Shell states that chronic effect benchmarks were derived for all substances of special concern (SOPCs) with the exception of the major ions, nutrients, naphthenic acids .a-nd TDS. were developed -to gauge the potential effects on 'aquatic communities based on background water quality and anticipated discharge water quality. -in its EIA sufficiency review (5.5 p. 9-10) Environment Canada states that since were at times developed from acute lethality data without adding a safety factor (thus inferring an elevated CEB) that the aggregated impact on aquatic ecosystems has not been estimated with sufficient confidence. The Panel requests that Shell; - discuss the repercussions associated with any aggregated effects on the environment from those CEB-s developed without having a safety factor added to the computation and possible mitigation for addressing any aggregated effects identified; EC notes that the CEB approach is based on assessing the response to a "single chemical and uncertainties exist with applying these values to future env_ironmental protection inciuding: extrapolation from lab organism responses to wild species; the relatively short lab exposure times; and the potential for additive, antagonistic or synergistic interactions between parameters in the complex mixtures found in the environment. EC notes that Shell Canada did not develop CEBs for nutrients; instead water .q_ual_ity _guidelines were used and indicated excesdance of this guideline. Eutrophication of receiving water' bodies as result of nutrient loadings may be an issue that could cause significant environments} effects (algal growth, low dissolved oxygen). Shell Canada concludes that "negligible eutrophication effects on aquatic biota are expected in these. watercourses under applica-tion -case conditions". EC concludes there are limitations of the CEB approach to predict futurebiological effects to 2165 and the potential effects of nutrients have not been fully characterized within the E18. EC's Position As with the MF mailer, EC remains concerned with Shell Canada's ability to predict and control effluent quality from the EPl_s. EC suggests that Shall be prepared to elaborate on contingency measures available to ensure effluent meets applicable water quality guidelines. AIR EMISSIONS AND GREENHOUSE GASES Mine Fleet, Appendix 3.2 Air Emissions-and Predictions In its December 16, 2011 adequacy review, EC argued that an appropriate methodology has not been used to assess the mine fleet profile used inthe air quality -assessment for the EIA. EC. notes that Shell Canada, in its January 18, 2012 ietler to the JRP regarding EC's Sl'Rs,. states: this is a methodology issue that should be discussed as part of the public hearing and is not a factor for the sufficiency review. Shells commitment is that vehicles in the mine fleet will meet applicable emission standards at' the time of purchase. Although the Federal Government has established a transition period for Tier 4 trucks out to 2021, the U. 8. transition period remains to 2015. If- Tier 4 vehicles are available in the US before they are available in Canada, Shell will purchase any new mine fleet vehiclesfrom the US. Shell Canada nevertheless provided updated information on its mine fleet in its May 15, 2012 response to the JRP. EC's Position EC suggests that Shell Canada be prepared to provide further clarification regarding the mine fleet profile over the lifespan of the mine and Nox, particulate and GHG emissions by yearfor the JPME ATTACHMENT 2 SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES FROM THE DECEMBER 16, 2011 ADEQUACY REVIEW. The following matters were identified the JRP, but not included in the JRP's Jan 30 SIR to Shetl. As these matters relate to project effects withi.n our mandate, EC will be seeking additional detail, as outlined below, during the hearings in order to fully understand the potential effects of the project. 3. Habitat Mapping: EC requests the use of Aiherte vegetation inventory data for delineating habitat classes and habitat parameters in the terrestrial regional study area to increase the predictive accuracy of wildlife habitat model output. Water Quality Modeling - Sediment Transport: Regional sediment transport modeling should be completed for the E18 as the modeling do not account for sediment transport and, therefore, the movement ofsectiment born contaminants. it is unclear if a portion of this assessment was included as part of the CEB evaluation of PAHs and some metals, which assumed that suspended sediment remained in the water column, Redciay Compensation Lake Effects: EC requests that Shell Canada provide a comparison of species at risk habitat at the Redolay Compensation lake location and at aiternative compensation lake locations to demonstrate their relative value for species at risk. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: EC requests the fetlowirtg information -from Shell Canada: Planned or existing measures at Shell's oil sand "facilities (inciuding the JPME) that will contribute to minimizing or reducing GHG emissions in order to he-ip Canada meet its 2020 target of a 17% reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 leveis, and the expected GHG reductions associated with thesernzeasures. an Estirnates of GHG emissions for the planned deveioprnent case. Fugitive Emission Calcuiations: EC requests that Shetl Canada provide information on the methodology and calculations used to calcutate fugitive' emissions in order to adequately assess Shetl Canada'-s emissions analysis. in addition, EC requests the upper and lower bounds for each category of sources within the fugitive EC also requests copies of the studies performed by the proponent or consuitants retated to estimating or measuring air emissions from tailing ponds and/or mine 'faces. 3 Health Same Cnna da Canada REE Environmental Health Program Regions and Programs Bureau Suite 730, 9700 Jasper Avenue Edmonton, AB TSJ 4C3 Aug 1, 2012 Joint Review Panel Secretariat Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor, Ottawa, ON KIA OH3 Tel.: 1-866-582-1884 Fax: 613-957~0941 Subject: Health Canada's Comment on the Additional Information for the Proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion Project CEAR #59540 Dear Mr. Dilay: Thank you for the request of June 4, 2012 for comment on the additional information provided by Shell Canada Energy' on the Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (dated May 2012). Health Canada (HC) is participating as a Federal Authority (FA) in accordance with Section 20 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (the Act), providing expertise in its possession, with respect to human health, when requested to do so by the Joint Review Panel. The objective of HC's review is to enable a more complete analysis and understanding of potential human health effects of the project. In some cases, failing to provide the suggested information may impact HC's understanding of the potential human health risks, and/or potentially lead to an under- and/or over-estimation of human health risks. As per HC's advisory role under the Act, HC suggests that additional information be provided in the following areas: human health risk assessment and air quality effects. This information will better infonn HC's review of the potential human health implications of the project and any mitigative and/or management options that could reduce potential human health impacts. HC's comments are available in Attachment 1: Additional information for the Shell ackpine Oil Sands Mine Project. Should you have any questions concerning HC's response, please contact me at 780-495-3857. cerely a {x Ward Chickoski Regional Director General Prairie Region -- Alberta Ph# 780-495-3857 Fax 780-485-5551 E-mail: Bryan I-Iaggarty, Health Canada, Alberta Region Brenda Woo, Health Canada, Alberta Region Kathleen I-Iedley, Health Canada, National Capital Region Luigi. Lorusso, Health Canada, National Capital Region Attachment 1: Additional information for the Shell Jackpine Oi} Sands Mine Project Reference Background Rationaie Question 1 Appendix The 2012 Base Case is Given continuing oil sands 1. Provide a baseiine air Human Health defined to include development, this information' is assessment scenario that Risk existing and approved necessary to allow for a more includes only existing Assessment projects, some of which comprehensive understanding the operating projects, without (HERA) for may not yet he built. current state of air quality in the the inclusion of approved the Shell There is no baseline air First Nation communities in the but not yet built projects. Jackpine Mine assessment scenario oil sands 'region and its irnpact on Expansion that details only current the health of Aboriginals. Update (20 i2), existing 'conditions Section 1, without the inclusion of Page 1 approved but not yet built projects. 2 Appendix 3.3- The original cabin, It is not clear whether the l. Clarify whether the 2007 2012 HHRA, Aboriginal and exposure assessment assumptions assumption of22.5 hr Section 2.2.2, community resident for the Aboriginal receptor per day spent indoors is Page 8-- 10 and groupings from the category are consistent with the still applicable for the 2007 BIA, 2007 EIA are now 2.007 EIA, particularly with Aboriginal receptor group. Volume combined into a single respect to time spent indoors. If so, provide rational that Page Aboriginal receptor this assumption is relevant category, which is for people engaged in a assumed to represent a. subsistence "lifestyle. subsistence receptor. 3 Appendix 3.3- Compared to 2007 BIA, These changes, in addition to the i. Provide justification for 2012 the 2012 HERA exclusion of chlorinated VOCs, changes in the properties Section 2.3.2, includes changes to the led to the exclusion of the used to identify persistent Pages l4-17 physicahchemicei aliphatic C5-C8 and C9-C16 COPCS. properties used to groups and the inclusion of 2. Provide justification for identify persistent formaldehyde and pyreoe. the exclusion of aliphatic COPCS (non--gaseous, The proponent has not provided C5-C8 and poteatiaiiy nonvolatile} - ray rational for the changes. 3. Given the continuous air for inclusion in the Given the continuous air emissions identified for the multiple pathway emissions identified for the project, provide rational for assessment. project (24 hr/day, 7 daysiwk, the exclusion of chemicals 365 days/year), it is uncertain with moderate to low whether the screening process for persistence that may persistent COPCs is appropriate accumulate in media. for the assessment of potential Aboriginal health impacts. 4 Appendix 3.3- For acroiein, in both In the 2007 (Section 1. Clarify the source of 2012 the acute and chronic 5.3.3.2), the acute and chronic acrolein exceedances in the Sections 3.1.2 air inhalation acrolein inhalation RQ 2012 and 3.2.1.4, assessments (2007 exceedances are attributed to 2. Identify mitigation Pages 32-33 BIA), the base case conservative assumptions measures for the acrolein and 39-40, scenario already regarding indoor air exceedances predicted. respectively; exceeds air quality concentrations. However, in the 3. Discuss the implications 2007 BIA, standards and predicted 2012 HHRA indoor air of the exclusion of Section exceedances are -concentrations are not included assumptions used in the 5.3.3.2, Page 5-1 12 widespread geogaphicaily. In the 2012 HHIRA, the acute acrolein and . consequently, nasal irritants mixture inhalation risk quotients exceed 1 at Fort MacKay and the maximum cabin location. The chronic nasal irritants mixture RQ exceeds 1 at the maximum cabin location. These modelling predictions would appear to be in contradiction with the 2007 sampling data, which found ambient acrolein concentrations to be lower than the in the air quality assessment but exceedances still remain, albeit lower. Therefore, it is uncertain what the source of the acrolein exceedances is in the 2012 HHRA for Fort MacKay and the cabin iocation. 2007 EIA for indoor air quality for the 2012 HERA results. predi.ctions. 2012 HI-IRA it is noted that Predicted increases in the 1. Identify what mitigation update, consumption advisories mercury burden in local fish may measures may be Section 2.1.1, are already in place for result in greater potential human employed in order to Page 4 several fish species health impacts to First Nation minimize any further from lakes and rivers in peoples. increase in Hg the oil sands area. concentrations and to minimize the exposure of First Nation peoples to foods with elevated mercury levels. 2012 HI-RA In the 2012 HHRA, The proponent states that i. Clarify whether there update, exceedances are ongoing water quality monitoring may be additional toxicants Section 3-4, predicted for will ensure the protection of both or toxicant mixtures not Page 5-6 manganese, mercury environment and human health considered in the 2012 (and liver, kidney, from these predicted I-IHTRA that could he found neurological and exceedances. in the pit lakes. reproductive and 2. Describe any long-term developmental toxicants monitoring and risk mixtures) in the pit lake management measures scenario multiple planned for the pit lakes. pathway exposure assessment for aboriginal receptors.