St Catherines Standard: Brock leading research on water issues in Niagara

Water is an asset and, just like finances, its long-term value and potential problems need to be monitored.

That’s the focus behind Liquid Assets, a research study being done by Brock University at the request of the Niagara Region’s Water Smart program.

The goal is to assess Niagara’s water supply and demand and to answer three main questions: How does water impact the region? Who does what when it comes to regulation and water quality monitoring? And what are the water issues Niagara will be facing in the future?

“There are hundreds of studies in the U.S. and dozens in Canada that look at water as an economic asset, but we couldn’t find any studies that specifically talked about Niagara,” said Steven Renzetti, a professor with Brock’s Department of Economics who is heading up the study through the Environmental Sustainability Research Centre. “Niagara is a blue economy – all of our sectors rely on good, clean water.”

Katelyn Vaughan, the project manager for the region’s Niagara Water Strategy, said Brock is being paid $60,000 to complete the research, which will be compiled into a report expected to be released in early 2013.

“Through this report, we can identify what the challenges are and to identify potential conflicts,” she said.

The research started about a year ago with a survey of municipalities and others involved in water quality and supply.

That was followed by a workshop in October, where it became obvious that a single source for water research was needed.

“We’re recognizing some of this knowledge does exist, but it’s not easily accessible. We have really good researchers who can’t access it,” Vaughan said.

She used water quality at beaches as an example of an area where historical data on beach closures exists, but isn’t available in one spot for the public to find.

Renzetti said the report can be used by the region and municipalities as they move forward in planning.

“You’re putting infrastructure in today that’s going to last 30 or 40 years, so you want to make the right decisions now, even though you might not think scarcity or conflicts are going to arise,” he said. “The last thing you want is in 20 years to be thinking ‘oh I wish we had of thought of that’.”

The local Liquid Assets study is part of a larger water research network launched earlier this year at Brock through a $2.3 million grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The research network will look at water-related issues across the country.

Studying water

* Liquid Assets: Assessing Water’s Contribution to Niagara

* Study requested by Niagara Region’s Water Smart program

* Research being done by Brock University’s Environmental Sustainability Research Centre

* Final report expected to be completed in early 2013

Water Canada: Wastewater Effluent Regs and FCM reaction

(Via: Water Canada) Feds Implement Wastewater Effluent Regs 
Posted on July 18, 2012

After over three years of discussion, including very public feedback the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, the federal government has announced that it will finally implement the national Wastewater System Effluent Regulations.

“We want water that is clean, safe, and plentiful for future generations of Canadians to enjoy,” said Minister of Environment Peter Kent this morning in Delta, British Columbia. “Through these regulations, we are addressing one of the largest sources of pollution in our waters. We’ve set the country’s first national standards for sewage treatment. These standards will reduce the levels of harmful substances deposited to surface water from wastewater systems in Canada.”

The feds worked with provinces and territories, and also engaged municipalities, to finalize these regulations. According to a release, it is expected that about 75 per cent of existing wastewater systems already meet the minimum secondary wastewater treatment standards in the regulations. Communities and municipalities that meet the standards will not need to make upgrades to their systems. The other 25 per cent will have to upgrade to at least secondary wastewater treatment.

CBC: Sewage used as fertilizer sparks B.C. blockade

Protesters set up blockade to stop trucks carrying biosolid fertilizer
CBC News, Feb 22, 2012

A group of concerned residents in the Salmon Valley, near Prince George, is refusing to let a local farmer spread treated stabilized human sewage on his fields.

The residents are blocking city dump trucks carrying biosolids from driving down a frozen gravel road to the farmer’s property, where the sewage will be stored and then spread on his fields in May or June.

“That’s the last thing we want to do is stand there and stop a trucker from making money, but we have to live out here,” said protester Linda Parker. “We have not got a choice, we are being told it’s going to come through, or you’re going to jail!”

‘The regulations and their own material says there is potential for water contamination from biosolids.’—Protester Andy Angele

Parker and others are concerned about water contamination and smell.

“I need to know, is it going to seep into the waterways, is it going to be harmful for the environment out here? There’s no tests that have been brought to us. We were not brought documents stating ‘this is what it does, this is what it’s for,’ ” said Parker.

Tuesday morning RCMP officers told the residents to dismantle their blockade, and Prince George city officials told residents their concerns would be addressed at a city meeting that afternoon.

But afterwards, Parker said, she and others still weren’t satisfied.

“They have not said anything to us, they will not give us answers,” said Parker.

Andy Angele says residents plan to keep blocking the dump trucks until an independent review is held, looking at the effects of spreading stabilized human sewage on agricultural land.

“The regulations and their own material says there is potential for water contamination from biosolids. They said more than 20 or 30 times in the regulation that there is potential for biosolid problems.”

The City of Prince George maintains the use of biosolids on farms is safe, and will continue to work with the concerned residents.

Water Law: Public Trust May Be Fresh Approach to Protecting Great Lakes

By Keith Schneider
Via: Circle of Blue

January 17, 2012 WASHINGTON, D.C. — Maude Barlow, a 64-year-old author and activist from Ottawa, is chairperson of the Council of Canadians, one of that country’s most influential public interest organizations. She has spent a globally prominent career advocating for clean water, environmental protection, and fairer trade deals for the Great Lakes region.

James Olson, a 66-year-old attorney from Traverse City, Michigan, is an expert in American environmental law who challenged Nestle’s authority to bottle Michigan’s groundwater in a 2003 case that spurred an eight-state pact in 2008 to block big diversions of water from the Great Lakes.

Now the two advocates, driven by their shared allegiance to the security of the Great Lakes, have teamed up to develop and promote the biggest idea of their careers. They are intent on applying two ancient governing and legal principles — defining the Great Lakes as a shared “commons,” protected by the public trust doctrine — to reverse the deteriorating condition of the largest system of fresh surface water on earth.

On December 13, Barlow and Olson took a momentous first step toward their goal when they spent 75 minutes formally introducing the concept to the Canadian and American leaders of the International Joint Commission (IJC), a bilateral agency founded in 1909 to help manage the Great Lakes and other waters that cross the boundaries of the two countries. It was the first time that a framework for managing the Great Lakes as a commons had been presented at such a high government level in both nations.

“We were asking the IJC to show leadership, by promoting a new narrative for protecting the Great Lakes,” Barlow added. “They were gracious, warm, and receptive. There was no hostility and a great deal of interest in how it would work.”

Frank Bevacqua, the IJC spokesman, said the commissioners would not comment publicly on what they heard. “Our commissioners wish to have the opportunity to discuss the material presented by Barlow and Olson amongst themselves, before giving interviews on the subject,” he said.

The proposal from Barlow and Olson also attracted interest from water law experts outside of government. Paul Simmons — a water law specialist and partner at Somach, Simmons, and Dunn in Sacramento — said in an interview with Circle of Blue that, since a 1983 state Supreme Court case, California has required water suppliers and regulators to consider the public trust implications in decisions involving water allocations from rivers for such things as supplying drinking water or for wildlife conservation.

The biggest question in defining the Great Lakes as a commons subject to public trust principles is how to install such principles in real-world law and regulation, according to Simmons.

Read the rest of the article

EPA declares trichloroethylene (TCE), a “very hazardous mutagenic cancer-causing chemical” after 22 years of study.

Today EPA took an important step towards protecting the public and wildlife from trichloroethylene (TCE), a very hazardous mutagenic cancer-causing chemical that pollutes the nation’s water and air. TCE is also the culprit involved in the Woburn, MA cancer cluster of childhood leukemia cases (and the subject of the movie, “A Civil Action” starring John Travolta). EPA’s press release is here.

This much-delayed action is a triumph of science over special interest politics. The public won today. Here I tell the history of science-manipulation for this chemical, but for the political shenanigans see today’s blog of my colleague Daniel Rosenberg.

TCE is a chlorinated solvent used primarily for metal degreasing—most notably for jet parts—and is a widespread drinking water contaminant that is leaching from military bases and industrial sites throughout the country. In addition to cancer, TCE causes harmful effects to the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system, and the developing fetus. The EPA has been trying to finalize its assessment of TCE for 22 years, making today’s announcement a long-overdue victory for health.

The last EPA assessment of TCE was 24 years ago, in 1987, classifying TCE as a “probable” human carcinogen (Group 2B). In 1989, the EPA started to update its TCE cancer assessment, but didn’t issue a draft for public and peer review for a dozen years, until 2001. The 2001 EPA draft for TCE calculated that the chemical was 5 to 65 times more toxic than previously estimated, and classified it as “highly likely” to cause human cancer. It identified children as a susceptible population, and noted that co-exposure to some other chemicals may augment the toxicity of TCE.

The 2001 draft also triggered a decade-long firestorm of criticism from the chemical industry, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE), which together are responsible for about 750 TCE-contaminated dump sites in the nation.

Read the whole article from NRDC

Dianne Saxe of envirolaw says this opens Canada to potential litigation as well:

Yes, TCE is a carcinogen
by DIANNE SAXE on OCTOBER 3, 2011

After 22 years of study, and intense political maneuvering, the US Environmental Protection Agency has formally classified TCE (trichloroethene, also called trichloroethylene) as a carcinogen, as well as a non-cancer hazard to human health. The assessment is now a formal part of the the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, a human health assessment program that evaluates the latest science on chemicals in the environment, and which has drawn considerable fire from industry. The new assessment may make it harder to cleanup TCE contaminated sites to acceptable levels, and may require changes in Canadian air, soil and water standards.

TCE is one of the most common man-made chemicals found in the environment. It is a volatile chemical and a widely used chlorinated solvent, especially from the 1930s to the 1970s. Frequently found at contaminated sites, TCE migrates easily from contaminated ground water and soil into the indoor air of overlying buildings. Since 1987, it has been classed as a “probable human carcinogen”, but it now turns out to have been dangerous at levels previously believed to be safe. In 2001, EPA calculated that the chemical was 5 to 65 times more toxic than previously estimated, and classified it as “highly likely” to cause human cancer, especially in children.This assessment has undergone several levels of peer review including, agency review, interagency review, public comment, external peer review by EPA’s Science Advisory Board in January 2011, and a scientific consultation review in 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences.

The new assessment may require regulators across Canada and the US to reassess generic criteria (for air, water and soil), risk assessments for sites contaminated with TCE, and limits on current industrial emissions. For example, until recently, Ontario allowed 50 ug/L of TCE in drinking water. According to the new assessment, that level was likely to cause cancer in about 1 in 10,000 people, possibly more in small children. Co-exposure to other chemicals can make TCE more dangerous to health.

The EPA plans to use the new TCE toxicity values in:

· Establishing cleanup methods at the 761 Superfund sites where TCE has been identified as a contaminant
· Understanding the risk from vapor intrusion as TCE vapors move from contaminated groundwater and soil into the indoor air of overlying buildings
· Revising EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level for TCE as part of the carcinogenic volatile organic compounds group in drinking water
· Developing appropriate regulatory standards limiting the atmospheric emissions of TCE.

All of these changes will likely affect Canadian standards as well, since we typically follow the US lead.

CTV: ‘Fracking’ fluid pitch stirs Great Lakes pollution fears

Clean water advocates worry that pollutants could stream into the Great Lakes if a proposal to treat chemical wastewater at a New York state sewage plant is approved.

The Niagara Falls Water Board (NFWB) is reviewing a plan to treat ‘fracking’ water — fluid waste from a gas extraction procedure — at a facility sitting on the Niagara River, which joins up with Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.

Early drafts of the plan propose trucking the liquid waste to the plant to be treated before returning it to wells for reuse, though some oil and gas companies have discharged the fluid into waterways, according to a Buffalo News report.

Environmentalists fear a spill or the possibility of the treated fluid being released back into a main water supply could threaten drinking water in the area and nearby cities such as Buffalo and Toronto.

“If discharged into waterways, the wastewater flowback puts the drinking water of communities in the region at risk,” Council of Canadians member Emma Sui wrote in an open letter to the NFWB.

The Great Lakes hold 95 per cent of North America’s freshwater and provide drinking water to 40 million people in surrounding communities, according to the social justice group.

NFWB spokesperson Earl Wells wouldn’t confirm details on the agency’s potential contingency plans for the discharging the wastewater, saying the proposal review is still in the early stages.

“One could make the leap that if you’re going to treat it you’re going to discharge it,” he told CTVNews.ca. “But we’re not even at the discussion point about discharging. The alternative could be just recycling the water.”

Recycling the wastewater, said Wells, would mean companies truck the fluid to the treatment plant and then take it back to reuse in the gas extraction process.

Wells added that the entire project will need to be rubber-stamped by New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

“All we have said is we’re looking at the potential possibility of treating wastewater from the drilling process,” he said in a phone interview from Niagara Falls, NY.

The chemical cocktail

Fracking fluid is a byproduct of hydro-fracking, a controversial drilling method used to exploit deposits of shale gas. The so-called cleaner fossil fuel is found inside densely-packed rock beds around the globe.

During the procedure, a high-pressure cocktail of water, sand and chemicals is pumped deep underground with the intention of blasting the rock open and freeing the gas within.

Chemicals such as methanol, ethylene glycol and sodium hydroxide are listed as commonly used hydro-fracking substances in a report prepared for the United States’ House of Representatives last April.

Environmentalists also take issue with the hydro-fracking process itself, worried that natural gas and wastewater will contaminate groundwater during extraction.

Like Quebec, New York state currently has a drilling moratorium in place on the state’s shale gas deposits.

Wells said he wouldn’t address environmental concerns, but pointed out that treating fracking fluid in Niagara Falls, N.Y. could be an economic boon to the area. (this comment concerns me the most. What about after the money is spent and the oil is gone? – M)

“It’s a poor city. It continues to see residents leave and revenue leave,” he said. “The cost of maintaining the water and the wastewater continue to put a burden on the ratepayers. It could generate jobs, mitigate rates.”  (It could. Lots of things ::could:: happen. – M)

Old fracking fluid from shale gas operations is typically stored in manmade lagoons with thick liners or reused by oil and gas companies. (It can also potentially contain NORM, or naturally occuring radioactive material which get carried by produced water (fracking fluid) to the surface. The most hazardous elements found in NORM are Radium 226, 228 and Radon 222 and daughter products from these radionuclides. The elements are referred to as “bone seekers” which when inside the body migrate to the bone tissue and concentrate. This exposure can cause bone cancers and other bone abnormalities. -Mickie)

Wells said the NFWB’s treatment plant is underutilized and one of only two facilities in New York State equipped to treat the type of contaminants found in fracking fluid.

But it may be costly and difficult to strip the chemicals from fracking fluid, warns a University of Windsor geology professor.

“Taking those chemicals from the water does not sound like an easy thing to me,” Frank Simpson told CTVNews.ca. “This is an amazing cocktail of substances not found in the natural environment.”

While Simpson said the vast majority of fracking fluid is made up of water, he said the chemicals in fracking fluid shouldn’t be overlooked.

Oil and gas operators in Canada aren’t required to disclose the chemicals used in hydro-fracking, according to an analyst from the David Suzuki Foundation.

Ingredients in fracking fluid differ from operation to operation (proprietary secret? from Environment Canada? What’s wrong with this picture here? – Mickie) but remain a major concern, said Simpson.

“If you took each one of those ingredients and did a web search you’d find links to undesirable human conditions,” said Simpson. “They’re bad for people if ingested in certain amounts.”

If the NFWB does decide to move forward with plans to treat fracking fluid, Simpson advises the group to tread carefully.

“This fluid is made up of artificial substances created by people to solve problems like corrosion and substance build-up,” he said. “It’s not the type of thing you want to come into contact with.”

Dianne Saxe: Fracking, drinking water and regulation

May 2, 2011 via envirolaw

Jessica Ernst has launched a multi million dollar lawsuit against Encana Corporation, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, and the Alberta government for contamination of her property and drinking water due to Encana’s fracking program.

Encana fractures rock to extract coal bed methane, much as fracking is used to extract natural gas from shale. (In March, after a public hearing, Quebec put a moratorium on shale gas exploration pending a full environmental assessment of the potential damage from fracking.) According to the Statement of Claim, many Albertans depend on drinking water from coal bed aquifers, but Ms. Ernst’s water is now so contaminated that it can be lit on fire.

She is also suing Alberta’s oil and gas regulator, alleging that it not only tolerated illegal behaviour by Encana and failed to protect her, but actively attempted to silence her complaints, and that Alberta Environment showed bad faith in “investigating” those complaints.

The lawsuit, together with the Quebec moratorium, signals the likelihood of stronger environmental regulations of fracking in the pursuit of shale gas or coalbed methane.

CKF: Top ten ways to keep Canada`s fresh water clean

From: Corporate Knights Forum

Our readers wanted to know the top ten ways to keep our fresh water just that—fresh. Here they are beginning from number ten to the number one best way to keep our water clean:

10 – Don’t flush your boat’s sewage and bilge into our water.

9 – Contribute to http://www.cleanwateraction.org

8 – Don’t let businesses dump chemicals into the environment.

7 – Keep drugs like Prozac, Birth Control pills, and pain killers out of our sewers.

6- Get rid of coal-fired power plants. The mercury they generate ends up in our lakes, rivers, and kids.

5 – Find out where your fresh water comes from and where your waste water goes… http://www.watershedstewardship.ca

4 – Use sustainable farming techniques – it pollutes less…  http://www.protectingwater.com/agriculture.html 

3 – Protect wetlands, swamps, marshes, and streams… http://www.livingbywater.com

2 – Don’t dump your waste paints, oil, and other chemicals down the sewer – dope!

1 – And the number one thing you can do to keep the water you drink clean? Get involved with your local politicians and make sure they understand you care. Oh, and they won’t get elected again if they don’t.

NRTEE releases first of two reports on the relationship of water and use by our natural resource sectors

Canada’s seeming abundance of water has masked a looming scarcity challenge.

Although Canada is blessed with a wealth of freshwater, it is not immune to water scarcity and overuse. Water use by major natural resource sectors, along with increasing consumption from a growing population and pressures from climate change, puts considerable strain on our water supply and the health of ecosystems.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) just released Changing currents: water sustainability and the future of Canada’s natural resource sectors, the first of two reports on the relationship of water and its use by our natural resource sectors.

Changing currents documents the use and consumption of Canada’s freshwater supplies by the electricity, oil and gas, agriculture, forest and mining sectors. It highlights the challenges ahead to ensure sustainable water use by these key economic sectors. The NRTEE report concludes that: 

• Data on precise water use and access to them is limited, making it difficult to know the national supply of water and the amounts being used.
• Approaches to allocating water in most of Canada are increasingly outdated and may no longer be appropriate given new environmental pressures and competing economic interests.
• Several levels of governments share jurisdiction over monitoring and managing water, leading to potential confusion among businesses that need water for production.
• There is an overall lack of capacity and expertise across the country to effectively manage water resources
• The impacts of climate change are expected to transform the way Canadians need to manage water resources.

NRTEE states that a new, national water framework would help prevent current regional scarcity challenges from becoming national ones. It would help ensure the viability of our natural resource sectors, which need water to grow and prosper. And, most important, a national water framework would help maintain the sustainability of our water sources.

Mondaq.com: Ontario MOE Revises Brownfields Regulations

(via: Mondaq.com)  

Willms & Schier, Environmental Lawyers LLP  

Canada: MOE Revises Brownfields Regulations   06 January 2010 Article by John Willms  

On December 29, 2009, without press release or Internet explanation, the Ontario government quietly filed the extensive and long-awaited changes to its brownfields regulations (O. Reg. 153/04). The amendments include:

• a complete rewrite of the requirements for Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (including new Schedules covering the application, site investigations, review and evaluation of the information, and preparation of the assessment report for each ESA)
• reference to new Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards (which, although dated July 27, 2009, apparently haven’t been released)
• a new definition of an “owner” under section 4
• further clarification on who is and who may not be a “qualified person”
• new site condition standards for shallow soil properties or water bodies
• new analytical procedures and protocols
• new provisions addressing soil brought from another property
• extensive revisions to Schedule A, which deal with the contents and submission of the Record of Site Condition (RSC)
• revisions to the “limited scope risk assessment” provisions in Schedule C
• new mandatory requirements for risk assessment reports in Schedule C

We haven’t finished going through the amendments in detail, but will be analyzing and summarizing the changes in the next issue of our newsletter.

In the meantime, there’s no need to panic; you still have considerable time to prepare for the new brownfield regime. Just a handful of rather limited revisions (ss. 1.7, 12, 19, 23, 24, 26 and 32) came into force when the amending regulation (O. Reg. 511/09) was filed. The bulk of the amendments don’t come into force until July 1, 2011. Even the transition provisions (in section 13) don’t come into effect until July 1, 2010.

There hasn’t been a posting on the Environmental Registry (yet) and the amending regulation won’t be published in The Ontario Gazette till the next issue. But you can find O. Reg. 511/09 on the “Source” law section of the province’s e-laws website at http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2009/elaws_src_regs_r09511_e.htm (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2009/elaws_src_regs_r09511_e.htm)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.