Water Pollution: Leachate, Sewage and Stormwater
Contents |
Introduction
Ontario’s lakes, rivers and streams represent an important natural resource, providing drinking water, recreational opportunities and essential ecological functions. This resource, however, continues to be endangered by untreated sewage, polluted stormwater, industrial effluent, agricultural runoff, climate change and other threats. The Ontario government must be proactive in addressing these risks.
This year, Ontarians filed several applications requesting that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) investigate the alleged discharge of contaminants into water. The ECO reports on MOE’s handling of some of these applications in this section of the Annual Report. For more information, refer to Section 6 of the Supplement to this Annual Report.
Discharge of Effluent from a Radioactive Waste Management Facility
In August 2008, applicants filed an application for investigation contending that Cameco Corporation contravened section 14 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and section 30 of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) by discharging effluent into Lake Ontario from a low-level radioactive waste management facility in Welcome, Ontario. In spring 2008, it was discovered that the pipeline between the Welcome Waste Management Facility (WWMF) and the lake had been severed and was discharging effluent onto the shore. The applicants alleged that discharged contaminants were likely to impair Lake Ontario, pollute drinking water, and limit residents’ enjoyment of nearby property. Effluent samples taken by the applicants indicated levels of arsenic and uranium exceeding the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs). The applicants also alleged that Cameco violated the spill reporting requirement under section 15 of the EPA.
In October 2008, MOE denied the application for investigation. MOE stated that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the federal regulatory agency responsible for licensing nuclear facilities (including radioactive waste management facilities), is requiring Cameco to undertake a comprehensive technical assessment of the WWMF. CNSC outlined an action plan for Cameco and requested that the company conduct a risk assessment and repair the effluent discharge pipe prior to the 2008 winter season. Preliminary evaluations of risk by MOE and CNSC concluded that exposure to the discharged effluent does not pose an immediate concern.
MOE stated that it will assist CNSC by providing technical advice on Cameco’s submissions and ensuring the facility’s operations are protective of the natural environment and human health. MOE will also ensure that future licensing requirements consider the PWQOs. MOE noted that a May 2008 inspection of the Port Hope municipal water plant confirmed that treated water quality continues to meet Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards.
The ECO is satisfied with MOE’s rationale for denying this application and is pleased that MOE worked with CNSC to address the application’s concerns. Given the multi-jurisdictional complexity of regulating the nuclear industry, it is vital that MOE uphold its pledge to continue working with CNSC in its assessment of the WWMF, and to monitor and evaluate water quality surrounding the facility to ensure contaminants do not exceed provincial requirements.
Discharge of Sewage from Cottage Septic Systems
In October 2008, applicants filed an application for investigation, alleging that contraventions of section 30(1) of the OWRA were occurring on Lake Matinenda (the “Lake”), near the Town of Blind River.
Specifically, they alleged that many cottages on the Lake have faulty, non-permitted septic systems, leading to illegal discharges into the waterbody. Further, they accused the Town of Blind River and the Algoma Public Health Unit (APHU) of permitting the discharge of untreated sewage into surface and ground water supplies.
In December 2008, MOE denied this application, stating that a review of water quality data collected by the ministry, the APHU and MOE’s Lake Partners Program since 2005 does not suggest significant concerns for the Lake. MOE also noted that while it is responsible for enforcing the OWRA and retains authority over large communal septic systems, small onsite septic systems are regulated by O. Reg. 350/06 under the Building Code Act, 1992 (BCA), which is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). In the late 1990s, MMAH delegated regulatory authority for permitting and inspecting small onsite septic systems to local enforcement agents, like APHU. Prior to this, MOE had responsibility for small onsite septic systems under the EPA.
Since the root of the applicants’ concern is small onsite septic systems, which are no longer directly regulated by MOE, the ECO believes that MOE was justified in denying this application. Nevertheless, the ECO is not entirely satisfied with MOE’s response. Although MOE stated that the potential for water quality degradation is within the scope of its review of the alleged OWRA contravention, unfortunately MOE failed to clarify why this provision could not be exercised in this instance; namely, that the Lake’s data do not show evidence of water quality impairment.
Furthermore, MOE indicated in its response that an “investigation” is ongoing, but was referring to survey work conducted under MOE’s Lake Partners Program. While this action is welcomed, the ECO does not believe it addresses the issue of faulty septic systems and cannot be considered comparable to an “investigation” as intended by the EBR. Finally, MOE’s suggestion that matters in the application be forwarded to MMAH via the ECO for follow-up was unhelpful since neither MMAH nor its legislation are subject to EBR investigations.
Discharge of Stormwater from a Cobourg Sewer Pipe
In April 2008, applicants requested an investigation of a stormwater sewer pipe constructed by the Town of Cobourg (the “Town”). In October 2005, MOE issued a Certificate of Approval (C of A) under section 53 of the OWRA to the Town to construct storm sewers on Coverdale Avenue and construct a new outfall structure to discharge stormwater to Lake Ontario. The applicants alleged that in constructing the sewer and reconstructing the storm sewer outlet, the Town enabled the discharge of high levels of total coliform and E. coli into Lake Ontario, contravening the EPA and causing adverse effects. To support this allegation, the applicants submitted the results of water samples collected from the outlet area. MOE accepted the application for investigation.
In December 2008, MOE responded it had completed its investigation and that “the stormwater quality is within ranges that may be expected for such municipal stormwater sewer systems; however, the outflow may lead to localized negative effects in the near-shore environment close to the outfall, under certain weather conditions.” MOE stated that it is working with the Town to ensure that beneficial management practices are implemented to improve stormwater quality, and determine additional actions to minimize the effects of the outfall’s discharge. The ministry made recommendations to the Town to improve stormwater quality (and associated shoreline conditions) and minimize human health impacts.
The ECO is pleased that MOE undertook this application and agrees that the water samples submitted by the applicants do not prove that the quality of the stormwater discharge was affected by the reconstruction of the stormwater sewer. Moreover, the ECO agrees with MOE that the analyzed water samples suggest that the stormwater quality is within expected ranges. The ECO is disappointed, however, that MOE did not conduct its sampling under “first-flush” conditions, which would have shown the highest levels of bacterial contamination in the stormwater discharge. By sampling the outlet during a variety of conditions (including heavy storms), MOE would be better able to estimate the E. coli counts typical of this outfall and more accurately attribute them to precipitation levels. The ECO supports MOE’s recommendations to the Town, particularly maintaining roadside ditches and grassed swales to provide infiltration for stormwater runoff and including stormwater discharges in the Town’s Pollution Control Plan.
ECO Comment
The ECO agrees with MOE’s decisions in handling these applications. Nevertheless, the ECO believes they draw attention to larger environmental concerns.
The Lake Matinenda application points to the pressing need for MMAH to improve its handling of small onsite septic systems under the BCA and Building Code, which sets no clear requirements for municipalities or local health units to carry out mandatory septic system re-inspections. While MMAH has proposed requirements for maintenance inspections (or re-inspections) of existing onsite sewage systems (Environment Registry Number 010-3036), the ministry has not suggested any new funding mechanism to implement them. Because municipalities are reluctant to impose the costs of an inspection program (and resulting septic system upgrades) on local ratepayers, it is estimated that only 20 Ontario municipalities have re-inspection programs. Surely a comprehensive program of septic system inspection and re-inspection would be far preferable to the slow, but inexorable degradation of thousands of Ontario cottage lakes.
Both the WWMF application and the storm sewer application point to the importance of informing the public about the safety of recreational waters. In Ontario, there are approximately 40 municipal beaches on Lake Ontario that report water quality to the public on at least a weekly basis. But Ontarians swim in a variety of nearshore areas, including areas not designated as beaches by local health units. MOE does not appear to require municipalities to alert the public about the suitability of these areas for recreational use.
As illustrated by these applications, the public may be unknowingly exposed to degraded water conditions near certain discharge points.
Finally, these applications illustrate that the regulatory oversight of a pollution source can be complex and straddle multiple jurisdictions and ministries (e.g., CNSC and MOE addressing the discharge of uranium into water; MOE, MMAH, and local health units administering Ontario’s septic systems). The ECO believes that in such situations, it is imperative that affected regulatory agencies clarify their jurisdictional roles and coordinate mitigation efforts so that environmental protection is not lost in a sea of constitutional and jurisdictional “buck passing.”
| This is an article from the 2008/09 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2009. "Water Pollution: Leachate, Sewage and Stormwater." Building Resilience, ECO Annual Report, 2008-09. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 94-97.
