Toxicologist talks coal mining regulatory process

By Dale Woodard on May 22, 2021.

Mandy Olsgard, the owner and Senior Toxicologist at Integrated Toxicology Solutions, was the guest speaker at the weekly Southern Alberta Council on Public Affairs Zoom conference Thursday.
The Grassy Mountain Open-Pit Coal Mine proposed by Benga Mining Ltd., (Riversdale) in the Crowsnest Pass has raised questions and concerns about the regulatory process in Alberta, such as the transparency, independent decision-making, and enforcement capacity of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).
Olsgard provided a summary of a case study of the regulatory process for coal mining in Alberta through the application phase to operational monitoring and finally closure and reclamation using examples from regulatory documents published by and submitted to the Alberta Energy Regulator for the Cheviot (Cardinal River and Luskar) Mine operated by Teck Resources Ltd in West Central Alberta.
Olsgard noted systemic issues from economic pressures from the Alberta Regulatory System and discussed the one-stop system, an automated review technology that the AER developed.
“I say economic pressures because I work for the Alberta Energy Regulator under an NDP government and it was no different than what we see under the UCP government,” said Olsgard. “So my views are apolitical. It doesn’t matter what system you have running Alberta, economic pressures from industry or the reliance on royalties, that’s what’s driving it and that’s independent of government sometimes.
“This will affect the decisions that are made by the board, the clauses that go into the approval, the compliance and the enforcement decisions, right through the entire regulation process.”
Citing examples from the Cardinal River Operation 2019 annual report, which was submitted in 2020, Olsgard spoke of selenium levels as well as the effects of mining on the harlequin duck brood ducklings.
Olsgard said in a joint panel decision adverse effects on harlequin ducks were identified and there was some proposed mitigation.
She referenced the compliance component of the harlequin duck study that was submitted by Tek using a consulting firm.
“We look at the population trends of these harlequin ducks we see in the early-pre-mining or baseline development there was no significant decrease in trend,” she said. “When we move into the operating phase, we see a significant decline over the 24-year period. I thought this was an important example because they actually show significance which, to me, means they’re significantly affecting a population of ducks or the receptor that was assessed in the environmental impact assessment. So I would be expecting to see some enforcement action around this non-compliance.”
Olsgard said in the early mining it looked like there were decreases in the broods ducklings.
“So this was insignificant in pre-mining, but it became significant in that early mining operating phase. It’s another example of the importance of really interpreting your data and really comparing it to the original predictions in your environmental impact assessments.”
Olsgard also spoke of the one-stop system.
“The applications that would be considered under One Stop that would be relevant to coal mining or exploration would be these new amended or renewal applications under the Public Lands Act, under the Water Act, Codes of Practice under the Water Act or some of the reclamation applications,” she said. “It’s important because this automated system allows the regulator to do quick reviews of what they have identified as low risk applications. If an application is low risk, it receives the standard or baseline review and this is automated through the system. However, if something in the one-stop system flags that application as requiring additional or manual review, then it requires more oversight.”
Olsgard provided a review of the one-stop application summary.
“When we focus on mines I can’t differentiate an oil sands mine application from a coal mine, but we can see the applications are by well disposition, pipe line or water approvals,” she said.
Olsgard said if an application can’t be reviewed through this automated process of One Stop, it moves into manual regulation. 
“The AER is responsible for all of the regulations, but they do it using Alberta’s Environmental Assessment Process.”
Wrapping up her presentation, Olsgard noted possible ways to address the situation of systemic issues from economic pressures on the Alberta regulatory system. 
“Maybe we could see quantitative benefit liability analysis being provided when there is a decision so people can see very clearly and decide for themselves,” she said. “Was this a decision made because the economic factors outweighed the environmental factors or was it a pretty even balanced decision? I think this would help a lot with the public’s trust of the system and really to move forward with energy development in this province. These need to be predictive and forward-looking.”
Olsgard said there can’t continue to be short-term decisions. 
“I think that’s how we have run into this issue with high liability, not enough security and a mistrust in the system. While this may be the cost of doing business – and I’m not an economist and I can’t say whether the risks outweigh the liabilities or the benefits outweigh the liabilities or vice versa – I can say it’s not entirely a world class system as we’re hearing touted by the government. It’s not entirely risk-based and it’s not balance-approached.”

Follow @dwoodardherald on Twitter

3
-2