Sharon From: Patty Ewaschuk [pewaschuk@wlwb.ca] Sent: Wednesday, - PDF document

Sharon From: Patty Ewaschuk [pewaschuk@wlwb.ca] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:54 PM 'Anne Wilson'; 'Bruce Hanna'; 'Cec Heron'; 'Charlotte Henry'; 'Chris Heron '; 'Colin Lake'; 'Don To: MacDonald'; 'Dora Enzoe'; 'Doug Crossley'; 'Eric Denholm'; 'Erika Nyyssonen'; 'Florence Catholique'; 'Geoff Clarke'; GNWT; 'Gord MacDonald'; 'Gregory Empson'; John Donihee; 'John McCullum'; 'Kathleen Racher'; 'Kevin Tweedle-KIA'; 'Loretta Ransom'; 'Lorraine Seale'; 'Louie Azzolini-YKDFN'; 'Marty Sanderson'; 'Monica Krieger'; 'Nathen Richea '; 'Neil Hutchinson'; 'Rachel Crapeau'; 'Rae Edzo Metis Nation'; 'Registry'; 'Rosy Bjornson'; 'Savanna Levenson'; 'Sheryl Grieve'; 'Stanley Anablak'; 'Stephen Ellis'; 'Tli Cho Lands Protection Department'; 'Tony Pearse'; 'Zabey Nevitt' Subject: FW: INAC intervention Attachments: YELLOWKN-#137140-v1-INAC_INTERVENTION_PRESENTATION_JUNE_4-5_2007.PPT; INAC Intervention.pdf YELLOWKN-# 13714 INAC 0-v1-INAC_INTER... ervention.pdf (189 KB -----Original Message----- From: Kathleen Racher [mailto:racherk@inac-ainc.gc.ca] Sent: May 23, 2007 4:55 PM To: Patty Ewaschuk Cc: Bryan Grey; David Kennedy; Doug Paget; Charlotte Henry; David Livingstone; Catherine Mallet; Nathen Richea; Scott.Duke@justice.gc.ca Subject: INAC intervention Hi Patty, Please find attached our written intervention and powerpoint presentation. The follwoing people will be attending on behalf of INAC: Kathy Racher (INAC - presenter) David Livingstone (INAC) Charlotte Henry (INAC) Scott Duke (Dept. of Justice) I have invited Susan Roe of the National Guidelines and Standards Office (Environment Canada, Ottawa) to come as well in case there are lots of questions about the making and setting of guidelines in Canada. At this time, she is not certain she, or anyone else from that office, will be able to attend as they have other things going on at that time. If she does come, she will not be presenting on her own and so no new evidence would be entered. As for c.v.'s - at the hearing in November, DDMI's counsel asked our Dept. of Justice representative if I had submitted my curriculum vitae as an expert witness. As an INAC employee, I had not thought of it. However, this time my c.v. is attached to the intervention if anyone is interested as I will be the main presenter at the upcoming hearing. I was not able to get Susan Roe's c.v. today but will submit it tomorrow just in case she is able to attend - I hope that is satisfactory. If not, let us know. Thanks, Kathy Kathleen Racher, Ph. D. Manager, Water Resources 1

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada phone: 867-669-2749 fax : 867-669-2716 2

Intervention for the Diavik Diamond Mines Inc. Water Licence Renewal June 4-5, 2007 Yellowknife, NT Presentation Overview • introductions • November 2006 recommendations (with respect to ammonia issues only) – review their original bases – review work/new evidence since Nov. 2006 – summarize any changes • concluding remarks

Nov. 2006: Recommendation #1: INAC recommends that a requirement be included in the renewed Water Licence for water samples from SNP1645-19 (i.e., close to the effluent-lake mixing zone) to be non-toxic to Hyalella azteca as determined by the “10-day Water-Only Toxicity Test for Hyalella azteca ” developed under the Record of Agreement • Why is it important to test Hyalella? Hyalella represents aquatic organisms that are + ) sensitive to Ionized-Ammonia (NH 4 + NH 3 NH 4 NH (pH, temp) in Lac de Gras 3 (un-ionized) (ionized) <1% 99% Hyalella is most sensitive to NH 4 + Rainbow trout are most sensitive (ionized ammonia) to NH 3 (un-ionized ammonia)

Why test Hyalella at SNP 1645-19? SNP 1645-19 (60m from E-of-P) End-of-pipe Lac de Gras Effluent (SNP 1645-18) Mixing Zone From the North Inlet Water Treatment Plant Hyalella sensitivity to ammonia increases with distance from end-of-pipe Lac de Gras Effluent sodium Sodium Mixing Mixing Potassium Zone Zone potassium Hyalella Hyalella sensitivity Sensitivity!

New Evidence: Trial test performed by DDMI on samples taken on one day 100% lake 5% effluent in water lake water LC 50 = 1 mg/L LC 50 = 18 mg/L However: – the protocol was not followed exactly by the lab – analysis of sample chemistry was not done correctly Therefore, the results of this single set of tests are inconclusive. Does the trial toxicity testing on Hyalella by DDMI change our recommendation? • No. Recommended test conditions: • As per “10-day water-only toxicity test for Hyalella azteca” developed under the Record of Agreement • Use the most sensitive strain of Hyalella • Simplify some conditions to minimize costs to DDMI: • Reduce number of replicates • Make it a pass/fail test for acute toxicity (not LC50 determination) as it is for rainbow trout etc. • Use water samples already taken as part routine testing at SNP 1645-19

Nov. 2006 Recommendation #2: INAC recommends that the effluent discharge limits for ammonia be set at 10 mg/L for the Maximum Average Concentration and 20 mg/L for the Maximum Daily (Grab) Concentration in the renewed Water Licence The proposed limits were lower than: • the limits adopted in the 2004 amendment to DDMI’s water license • the generic national water quality guidelines for ammonia Canadian Water Quality Guidelines …are developed through the Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment (CCME) “ Guidelines are numerical limits or narrative statements based on the most current, scientifically defensible toxicological data available for the parameter of interest. Guideline values are meant to protect all forms of aquatic life and all aspects of the aquatic life cycle….”

Example of setting a national Water Quality Guideline Brown Trout -the final guideline value should protect “the most sensitive life stage of the most sensitive Rainbow Trout species over the long term” Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Fathead Minnow 1 Smallmouth Bass Snail Clam Mayfly 0 Acute Toxicity Value 160 (mg/L ammonia it takes to be acutely toxic to species) Why wouldn’t we adopt the national guideline for ammonia? Because none of the “most current, scientifically defensible toxicological data available” used in setting the last ammonia guideline was collected: • under conditions similar to those in Lac de Gras (with respect to temperature, pH, conductivity) • on any northern species of fish • on organisms that are most sensitive to ionized ammonia, NH 4 + , - the predominant form of ammonia in Lac de Gras

Finally, the CCME itself states: “While adoption of generic Water Quality Guidelines represents the primary procedure for establishing numerical Water Quality Objectives, the presence of unique water quality characteristics or species assemblages at certain sites may necessitate the derivation of site-adapted water quality objectives.” INAC’s recommended discharge limit for ammonia was based on the unique conditions at Lac de Gras and was, therefore, put forward as more protective of the environment at this site. New Evidence: Determination of the “Lowest Effluent Criteria Practical at Site” Two considerations for deciding whether this new evidence would change INAC’s Recommendation #2: 1. The credibility and utility of the Ammonia Review Panel of Experts’ review and subsequent recommendations; and 2. The appropriateness of setting an effluent discharge limit based on what is operationally achievable on site.

INAC’s opinion of Expert Panel process and conclusions Fair Independent, unbiased and knowledgeable experts Thorough Demonstrated excellent knowledge of site and workable options Reasonable Endorsed options require minimal changes to water treatment or associated mine activities Transparent Stakeholder comments were adequately addressed Is it appropriate to set limits more stringent than Canadian Water Quality Guidelines? The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment says: “For waters of superior quality or that support valuable biological resources, the CCME nondegradation policy states that the degradation of the existing water quality should always be avoided.” “For ecosystems of superior quality, impairment to guideline concentrations is not advocated.”

Is it appropriate to set limits more stringent than Canadian Water Quality Guidelines? The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment says: …, insufficient information on the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the receiving water system may be available to modify the generic water quality guidelines to consider site conditions. The development of manufacturing processes that reduce the production of waste products and improve the performance of wastewater treatment systems are normal research and development activities that are actively pursued by all responsible corporations and government organizations.” Is it uncommon for effluent discharge limits to be set based on lowest achievable? • No, it is practiced in many jurisdictions (e.g., Canada- Metal Mining Effluent Regulations; US – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) US-NPDES: Determine limits based on: Use Protection Limits and Technology-Based Limits (humans, fish, wildlife etc.) (best practical/achievable, best professional judgement) Choose the most stringent in order to minimize loadings to environment