This Web page has been archived on the Web.
Gas plant contaminants, Turner Valley, Alberta
Petition: No. 162
Issue(s): Environmental assessment, human health/environmental health, toxic substances, waste management, and water
Petitioner(s): Linda Abrams
Date Received: 13 January 2006
Status: Completed
Summary: The petitioner is concerned about health and environmental impacts resulting from soil and water contamination by the Turner Valley Gas Plant—a national historic site. The petitioner poses questions about the designation of the site and the enforcement of federal regulations to deal with the contamination. Requests for federal action concerning the site itself, related health impacts in Alberta, and a comprehensive water act for Canada are included as part of the petition.
Federal Departments Responsible for Reply: Canadian Heritage, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Parks Canada Agency
Petition
January 10, 2006
Mme. Johanne Gelinas
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Resources
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
11th Floor, 240 Sparks Street, West Tower
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6
Fax: 1-613-941-8286
Sent by Facsimile Transmission
Dear Mme. Gelinas:
Re: Contamination of the Sheep River of southern Alberta in the vicinity of the contaminated former Turner Valley Gas Plant and the impact of the former plant on the area residents
As an area resident, business owner and land owner in the vicinity of the former Turner Valley Gas Plant, I have a number of environmental and health concerns regarding the former plant site and its impact on the Sheep River and the people of the region. Further to my letter of November 22, 2005, I am writing to formally ask your office, as per the Auditor General Act, to contact the federal ministers involved so that they may respond to my questions.
The former Turner Valley Gas Plant was purchased by the Government of Alberta between 1988 and 1990. One dollar was paid for the site. The rationale for the purchase was that, as the birthplace of the oil and gas industry in Alberta, the gas plant site was of historical significance. As such, the site was designated a provincial historic resource in 1995. It was also designated a national historic site at that time.
As per the sales agreement* (sent to your office under separate cover), "The Minister hereby assumes all obligations and liability of the Indemnified Parties, past, present or future…in any way related to the quality of the air, soil, water or groundwater in, on or about the Lands, Wells or the Plant".
The study* upon which the purchase of the property was based (Monenco, 1987) had been commissioned by one of the former owners of the site (Western Decalta). The document* (also forwarded to your office) outlined the contamination on the site. Since that time, at least 23 other documents (commissioned by the Province) have continued to chronicle the contamination on and off site at the former gas plant. Again, these documents have been forwarded to your office. It should be noted that the former gas plant site has been designated a Tier 3c contaminated site under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.
The former gas plant is quite a complex site in that it is comprised of 3 contiguous parcels of land (a total of approximately 40 acres) which are adjacent to the Sheep River in the town of Turner Valley, AB. There is an in-ground sour gas flare pit on site which has been burning constantly since 1977. There are active pipelines under the site, and a portion of the site has been leased to Talisman Energy for its active compressor station which has its own flare stack. It is possible that new fittings, which have been added to some of the existing structures on the site, are currently being used and, therefore, the site has not been decommissioned. Public tours have been conducted on the site since 1995, prior to any clean-up of contamination. This documentation* has also been forwarded to your office.
The Sheep River, which is adjacent to the former gas plant, is a Class C water body (documentation* forwarded to your office) which is home to the bull trout, a protected species in Alberta. The river also provides habitat for the Westslope Cutthroat Trout, a fish species which has been designated as threatened in Alberta (by COSEWIC). The Sheep River enters the lower Bow River which is home to the Lake Sturgeon, a fish species which has been listed as endangered by COSEWIC.
It would appear that Section 36 (3) of the Fisheries Act has been violated. The section states:
Subject to subsection (4), no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under any condition where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water.
It should be noted that the town of Turner Valley (population of approx. 1700) has water wells up-gradient of the former gas plant along the Sheep River. One resident of the town has expressed concern to Turner Valley Town Council that sour gas, which had been accessed for the Dingman 2 well on the former gas plant site, currently passes through the aquifer for one of the Turner Valley town water wells.
Black Diamond, a town with a population of approximately 2,000, is 3 kilometers downstream of the former gas plant. The town water wells for Black Diamond are extremely shallow (between 4 and 10 meters deep) and are hydraulically connected to the Sheep River (documentation* also forwarded to you). Okotoks (population of approx. 14,000) is a further 20 kilometers downstream with town water wells along the Sheep River.
I would like to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage the following:
- What criteria were used for determining the former Turner Valley Gas Plant to be a national historic site?
- Was an assessment of any kind done to determine the safety of the former gas plant as a national historic site given that it was confirmed to be a contaminated site in 1987?
- Who was involved in making the determination that the former Turner Valley Gas Plant was an appropriate choice as a national historic site?
- What actions will the Minister be taking now that the site has been closed to the public and that it has been publicly confirmed to be contaminated?
I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment the following:
- Will the Minister order a full environmental assessment given the confirmed contamination of the former Turner Valley Gas Plant and its impact on the Sheep River?
- Why did the Department wait until October 24, 2005 to open a file to investigate any violations?
- Will the Minister make recommendations that more comprehensive drinking water testing should be done in communities across Canada where water sources are potentially compromised by industrial sites (either historic or current)?
- Will the Minister recommend the development of a comprehensive Water Act for Canada?
I would like to ask the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the following:
- Given that there had been a meeting on May 26, 2003 involving representatives of Alberta Community Development, Alberta Infrastructure, Alberta Environment and Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding contamination entering the Sheep River from the former Turner Valley Gas Plant, why did the Department wait until October of 2005 to register a complaint with Environment Canada? The file was opened on October 24, 2005.
- It has been brought to my attention that the Alberta Department of Infrastructure and Transportation had entered the Sheep River in 2004 to perform the first river diversion at the former gas plant site. I am told that no approval to enter the river had been given by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Is this the case, and if so will the Department be pursuing legal action against the Province of Alberta for this violation?
- According to one of the engineering documents* commissioned by the Province of Alberta, the original river diversion work (noted above) of 2004 had not been built to design (a copy of the document* has been forwarded—C5 Engineering Ltd. `Turner Valley Gas Plant Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring Programs', October 2004). The engineer commented that the `as-built' drawings indicate that the floodway channel cross-section open areas were less than the design areas and that the reduction could potentially cause upstream flooding, increased channel velocity, bed degradation and down stream bank erosion in the vicinity of the gas plant. The flooding of the Sheep River in June of 2005 resulted in the destruction of this first river diversion work and flooding of the contaminated former gas plant site upstream of the diversion. What course of action will the Minister take given this information?
I would like to ask the Minister of Health the following:
- Will the Minister order a full health assessment of the residents in the area of the former Turner Valley Gas Plant? I have forwarded a copy of a letter* authored by Dr. James Argo, PhD which addresses the health risks associated with exposure to gas well flaring. The residents of this area have been subjected to continual flaring since at least 1977, and previous testing of town drinking water may not have included appropriate parameters to definitely demonstrate its safety.
- Will the Minister order an examination of the health impact of all gas well flares in Alberta? Dr. Argo would be pleased to provide additional information.
I have also forwarded additional information* on the former gas plant site related to confirmed contamination, site maps* and additional studies*.
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate my concerns to the Government of Canada. I would like to close by making reference to the precautionary principle:
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Sincerely,
[Original signed by Linda Abrams]
Linda Abrams
Box 598
Black Diamond, Alberta
T0L 0H0
Office / fax (403) 933-2347
Residence (403) 995-1527
E-mail: linda@protectthesheep.ca
*[attachments not posted]
Minister's Response: Canadian Heritage
The questions addressed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as the minister responsible for the national commemoration program, now fall under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment.
18 May 2006
Ms. Linda Abrams
P.O. Box 598
Black Diamond, Alberta
T0L 0H0
Dear Ms. Abrams:
I am writing to provide Environment Canada's and Parks Canada's response to your Environmental Petition No. 162, to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the contamination of the Sheep River. Your petition was received in the Department on January 27, 2006. Please find the response enclosed.
I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition and trust that you will find this information useful.
Yours sincerely,
[Original signed by Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment]
Rona Ambrose
ENVIRONMENT CANADA
RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL
PETITION No. 162
UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL ACT
PETITIONER: Ms. Linda Abrams
Questions addressed to the Minister of the Environment
Question 1
- Will the Minister order a full environmental assessment given the confirmed contamination of the former Turner Valley Gas Plant and its impact on the Sheep River?
Response
Environmental assessments are conducted to predict the environmental effects of proposed initiatives or projects. There are two main purposes for an environmental assessment: minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they occur; and, incorporate environmental factors into decision making. Since Environment Canada has no distinct project proposal to assess, or further decision-making authority with respect to the Turner Valley Gas Plant itself, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is not triggered.
Question 2
- Why did the Department wait until October 24, 2005 to open a file to investigate any violations?
Response
As there is an investigation currently under way, Environment Canada is unable to provide comments or details on the particulars of this case.
Question 3
- Will the Minister make recommendations that more comprehensive drinking water testing should be done in communities across Canada, where water sources are potentially compromised by industrial sites (either historic or current)?
Response
The responsibility for the provision of drinking water rests with the provinces and territories. This includes drinking water testing and regulating drinking water and wastewater services.
It is the primary jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments to manage and protect water quality, including source water protection. The federal government plays a significant role in protecting water quality by regulating toxic substances, conducting water quality research, and promoting pollution prevention. In protecting water quality, it is essential that the federal government work in collaboration with the provinces and territories, by co-operating on ecosystem programs to clean up and prevent pollution, as well as on water quality monitoring and guideline development.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality have been developed collaboratively by Health Canada and the provinces and territories. These Guidelines are an important reference tool for local governments, as they outline acceptable concentrations for over 100 contaminants that may be found in drinking water. These guidelines are used in all Canadian jurisdictions as a basis for ensuring the safety of Canada's drinking water. In several provinces, the guidelines have the force of standards. Further information is available on Health Canada's "Water Quality and Health" Web site, at www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/water/index.htm.
In addition, Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines have been developed by federal, provincial and territorial governments under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). These include Canadian Water Quality Guidelines to protect aquatic life, including the plants and animals for over 220 substances that may be present in our lakes, rivers and oceans, as well as guidelines that describe necessary conditions (e.g. temperature, oxygen) for healthy populations of aquatic organisms. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the protection of environmental and human health are developed for four land uses and include measures to protect groundwater. All jurisdictions implement the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines to varying degrees. A few provinces develop their own guidelines. Additional information is available from the National Guidelines and Standards Office of Environment Canada, at www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/ English/ceqg/default.cfm.
The Government of Canada continues to support and build on existing co-operation with the provinces and territories, by working with the CCME to enhance and protect our water resources. Since 2001, Ministers have emphasized the importance of protecting drinking water from the source to the tap. This source-to-tap approach reflects the need to protect our rivers, lakes and aquifers, as well as the importance of strong guidelines for the protection of water quality and ecosystem health developed collaboratively by health and environment ministries. For more information, visit the CCME's "Source to Tap" Web site at www.ccme.ca/sourcetotap.
Question 4
- Will the Minister recommend the development of a comprehensive Water Act for Canada?
Response
The federal government currently has an effective suite of tools and instruments, including legislation, which permits federal departments to engage in aspects of water management within our defined responsibilities.
Under Canada's Constitution, the primary jurisdiction for water resources management, including water quality, rests with the provinces. They were accorded the jurisdiction over property and civil rights, control over local works and undertakings, and the management of natural resources, including water.
The provinces have the authority under their legislation to grant water licences or authorizations for water uses, the construction of dams and other works in lakes and streams and water takings, etc.
Federal jurisdiction in water management is derived from its exclusive legislative jurisdiction over fisheries, navigation, relations with foreign governments and treaty making, federal lands and lands reserved for Indians, and criminal law.
Federal involvement in water management is based on a number of Acts, the most important being the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. As you are probably aware, the first two acts establish the basis for federal efforts in water quality issues and management.
Another key piece of legislation is the Canada Water Act (CWA). The CWA is an enabling act that allows the federal Minister of the Environment to enter into co-operative arrangements with the provinces in such areas as data collection, water resources studies, joint programs and research studies.
The federal government adopted the Federal Water Policy in 1987. It is a statement of the federal government's goals for the nation's freshwater resources. Since the provinces exercise direct control over many aspects of water management, the federal government seeks a joint and co-operative approach with the provinces to achieve these goals.
The questions addressed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as the minister responsible for the national commemoration program, now fall under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment.
Question 1
- What criteria were used for determining the former Turner Valley Gas Plant to be a national historic site?
Response
Any aspect of Canada's human history may be considered for Ministerial designation of national historic significance. More specifically, a place may be designated a national historic site by virtue of a direct association with a nationally significant aspect of Canadian history. In this instance, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC) determined that the oil and gas extraction industry was a major aspect of the mining theme in Canada and critically important to the country's economic development. The HSMBC further determined that the petroleum industry in Alberta was an important aspect of this theme and asked Parks Canada to undertake a survey of places associated with the petroleum industry with potential suitability for commemoration.
In November 1995, the HSMBC considered a research paper on the Turner Valley Gas Plant and, on the basis of this information, recommended it for designation as a national historic site because: 1) it is central to the history of petroleum extraction technology and it is the earliest and only surviving example of its kind in Canada; and 2) it is the most significant in situ resource associated with the Turner Valley petroleum field. Moreover, the site encapsulates the historical character of the field.
Question 2
- Was an assessment of any kind done to determine the safety of the former gas plant as a national historic site given that it was confirmed to be a contaminated site in 1987?
Response
Under the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, the role and mandate of the HSMBC is to determine whether a subject brought forward for its consideration is of national historic significance. The usual form of commemoration is by means of a bronze plaque installed at the site; this does not require an assessment of whether the site is contaminated. In October 2001, Parks Canada approved a Conservation and Presentation Plan for Turner Valley Gas Plant National Historic Site of Canada, which was prepared in partnership with the Alberta government. The Plan acknowledges the contamination at the Turner Valley Gas Plant and states that the Site's heritage values will be respected by all those whose decisions or actions affect the Site, for example, when contaminants are removed or managed to reduce risk to the surrounding environment or the visiting public. Any environmental clean-up projects or actions are expected to be handled in a way that respects the cultural values of the Site.
Question 3
- Who was involved in making the determination that the former Turner Valley Gas Plant was an appropriate choice as a national historic site?
Response
In June 1987, the HSMBC was informed that the Government of Alberta had an interest in exploring with Parks Canada the possibility of co-operating in the conservation and eventual interpretation of one resource, or perhaps a number of resources, associated with the petroleum industry. The Government of Alberta, which owns Turner Valley Gas Plant National Historic Site, has maintained an ongoing interest in developing this site with Parks Canada, although federal funds have not been forthcoming.
In November 1995, the HSMBC evaluated the national historic significance of the Site and recommended its designation to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister responsible for the national commemoration program at the time. Parks Canada supports the HSMBC in the conduct of its business, including the preparation of historic papers for the consideration of the HSMBC and implementing the Minister's decisions with respect to appropriate forms of commemoration. Commemoration may include the installation of a bronze plaque, the contribution of funds to the site owner to assist with its conservation and presentation, or the acquisition of a site by Parks Canada.
Question 4
- What actions will the Minister be taking now that the site has been closed to the public and that it has been publicly confirmed to be contaminated?
Response
No further action with respect to the closure of Turner Valley Gas Plant National Historic Site is expected, at this time. The Minister's interest under the national commemoration program is to ensure that the cultural resources of this national historic site are respected, and that the closure of the Turner Valley Gas Plant to the public does not appear to compromise these resources. The issues of public access and contamination at the Site are the responsibility of the Site owner— the Government of Alberta.
Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
May 10, 2006
Ms. Linda Abrams
Box 598
Black Diamond, Alberta
T0L 0H0
Thank you for sharing your concerns in your January 10, 2006, Environmental Petition No. 162, submitted under the provisions of the Auditor General Act to Ms. Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
On January 27, 2006, Ms. Gélinas forwarded your correspondence to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for response. The concerns raised relate to possible contamination of the Sheep River in the vicinity of the former Turner Valley Gas Plant, (hereinafter referred to as the TVGP) and the potential impact to area residents. Specifically, you had questions or concerns regarding DFO's involvement with the TVGP and the expediency of DFO's response and referral of information to Environment Canada (EC). You asked about DFO's administration of the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act and whether DFO will pursue legal action against Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation (AIT) for not obtaining the appropriate authorization to enter the river to perform construction activities at the site. You also requested information on DFO's course of action in response to the bank erosion and upstream flooding of the TVGP which took place in June 2005.
In order to respond to your questions, let me outline DFO's recent involvement related to works and undertakings near the TVGP. DFO is unaware of a meeting related to the TVGP on May 26, 2003. The initial project proposed by AIT to protect the river banks from future erosion in the vicinity of the TVGP was submitted to DFO's Calgary office on June 6, 2003.
DFO staff subsequently attended a meeting on June 26, 2003, with provincial counterparts, to discuss the proposed development plans adjacent to the TVGP. At this meeting, DFO enquired as to whether EC had been contacted given the potential for hydrocarbon contamination entering the Sheep River. DFO indicated that, as part of the review process, EC would need to be contacted and DFO would be forwarding any project information to EC for comment.
The DFO review of AIT's proposal on the realignment and bank protection works along the Sheep River at the TVGP was conducted in the context of DFO's responsibility for the protection of fish and fish habitat pursuant to the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. The harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) is prohibited unless authorized by DFO pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. In keeping with DFO's 1986 Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat, authorizations are only issued where appropriate measures to mitigate impacts to fish habitat have been implemented and where acceptable measures to compensate for the habitat loss are developed and implemented by the proponent.
An authorization under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act triggers the need for an environmental assessment under The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The environmental assessment of the proposed realignment and bank protection works near the TVGP was conducted in December 2003. As part of the environmental assessment process, and in accordance with the CEAA Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements (Federal Coordination Regulations), the project information was circulated to other federal departments, including EC, soliciting input into the environmental assessment.
On January 29, 2004, following completion of the environmental assessment, DFO issued an authorization to AIT pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act authorizing the HADD resulting from the proposed river diversion and bank armouring works to protect the TVGP. This appropriate authorization was issued to AIT prior to the start of construction of the initial Sheep River diversion works in 2004.
DFO received a complaint on February 13, 2004 from a private citizen concerned about the placement of contaminated material in the Sheep River. The individual was referred to EC as EC is responsible for administering section 36 of the Fisheries Act which deals with the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish. DFO also contacted EC directly in February 2004 to inform EC officials of the complaint, and participated in a joint site visit of the TVGP with an EC enforcement officer on March 2, 2004. I understand that EC continues to investigate this complaint related to the TVGP.
Your petition also raises issues pertaining to the "as-built" design of the initial diversion works and potential impacts to the river in the vicinity of the TVGP following the June 2005 flooding event. As previously stated, DFO is responsible for the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act and follows the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat when determining whether or not to authorize the HADD. In this regard, DFO does not approve a "project" design but rather may authorize the potential impacts of a proposed project on fish and fish habitat.
Based on the information provided, DFO issued a Fisheries Act authorization on January 29, 2004, for the HADD expected to result from the project. As you point out, an extreme flood event occurred subsequent to the works being built. The flood caused extensive erosion and flooding throughout the area. The magnitude of the flood event made it impossible to determine whether or not the "as-built" diversion caused or aggravated the erosion and flooding that occurred at the TVGP during the June 2005 flood.
Biologists from DFO's Calgary Office are continuing to work cooperatively with AIT, Alberta Community Development, and Alberta Environment to identify a strategy for bank protection and erosion control that would help minimize the potential for leachates migrating off of the TVGP and entering the Sheep River. In accordance with the Fisheries Act and the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat DFO will review the potential for effects to fish and fish habitat associated with any new plans it should receive for shoreline works near the TVGP.
Thank you for your questions regarding DFO's involvement on the TVGP. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact Tom Olson in DFO's Lethbridge Office, at (403) 394-2915.
Sincerely,
[Original signed by Loyola Hearn, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]
Loyola Hearn, P.C., M.P.
|
c.c.: |
The Honourable Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P. |
Minister's Response: Health Canada
23 May 2006
Ms. Linda Abram
P.O. Box 598
Black Diamond, Alberta
T0L 0H0
Dear Ms. Abrams:
This is in response to your correspondence of January 10, 2006, addressed to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Canada, and forwarded to Health Canada on January 27, 2006, concerning Environmental Petition No. 162, pursuant to Section 22 of the Auditor General Act.
In this petition, you ask important questions regarding the potential contamination of the Sheep River of Southern Alberta in the vicinity of the former Turner Valley Gas Plant, and the health effects on visitors to this historic site. Your concerns are taken very seriously.
Health Canada officials have carefully considered the questions directed to the Department in your petition. With regard to the questions: "Will the Minister order a full health assessment of the residents in the area of the former Turner Valley Gas Plant?" and "Will the Minister order an examination of the health impact of all gas well flares in Alberta?," please note that these concerns fall under the jurisdiction of municipalities, regional health authorities, and the Province of Alberta.
I understand records from the Calgary Health Authority and Alberta Environment indicate that flare emissions and water results have been in compliance with recommended levels. As well, the Province of Alberta established a Resolution Advisory Panel of twelve members in January 2006. This Advisory Panel will review the Alberta Government's efforts to clean up the Turner Valley Gas Plant site and provide advice on its future as a historic site. Its members represent the interests of municipalities, environmental groups, regional health authorities, and other stakeholders. The Safe Environments Programme of Health Canada for Alberta and the Northwest Territories will be participating in the Resolution Advisory Panel's meetings as an observer.
I understand that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be responding to the other questions that you posed to Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Canadian Heritage.
Thank you for the interest in this important environmental and health matter.
Yours sincerely,
[Original signed by Tony Clement]
Tony Clement
Joint Response: Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency
18 May 2006
Ms. Linda Abrams
P.O. Box 598
Black Diamond, Alberta
T0L 0H0
Dear Ms. Abrams:
I am writing to provide Environment Canada's and Parks Canada's response to your Environmental Petition No. 162, to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the contamination of the Sheep River. Your petition was received in the Department on January 27, 2006. Please find the response enclosed.
I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition and trust that you will find this information useful.
Yours sincerely,
[Original signed by Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment]
Rona Ambrose
ENVIRONMENT CANADA
RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL
PETITION No. 162
UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL ACT
PETITIONER: Ms. Linda Abrams
Questions addressed to the Minister of the Environment
Question 1
- Will the Minister order a full environmental assessment given the confirmed contamination of the former Turner Valley Gas Plant and its impact on the Sheep River?
Response
Environmental assessments are conducted to predict the environmental effects of proposed initiatives or projects. There are two main purposes for an environmental assessment: minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects before they occur; and, incorporate environmental factors into decision making. Since Environment Canada has no distinct project proposal to assess, or further decision-making authority with respect to the Turner Valley Gas Plant itself, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is not triggered.
Question 2
- Why did the Department wait until October 24, 2005 to open a file to investigate any violations?
Response
As there is an investigation currently under way, Environment Canada is unable to provide comments or details on the particulars of this case.
Question 3
- Will the Minister make recommendations that more comprehensive drinking water testing should be done in communities across Canada, where water sources are potentially compromised by industrial sites (either historic or current)?
Response
The responsibility for the provision of drinking water rests with the provinces and territories. This includes drinking water testing and regulating drinking water and wastewater services.
It is the primary jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments to manage and protect water quality, including source water protection. The federal government plays a significant role in protecting water quality by regulating toxic substances, conducting water quality research, and promoting pollution prevention. In protecting water quality, it is essential that the federal government work in collaboration with the provinces and territories, by co-operating on ecosystem programs to clean up and prevent pollution, as well as on water quality monitoring and guideline development.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality have been developed collaboratively by Health Canada and the provinces and territories. These Guidelines are an important reference tool for local governments, as they outline acceptable concentrations for over 100 contaminants that may be found in drinking water. These guidelines are used in all Canadian jurisdictions as a basis for ensuring the safety of Canada's drinking water. In several provinces, the guidelines have the force of standards. Further information is available on Health Canada's "Water Quality and Health" Web site, at www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/water/index.htm.
In addition, Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines have been developed by federal, provincial and territorial governments under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). These include Canadian Water Quality Guidelines to protect aquatic life, including the plants and animals for over 220 substances that may be present in our lakes, rivers and oceans, as well as guidelines that describe necessary conditions (e.g. temperature, oxygen) for healthy populations of aquatic organisms. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the protection of environmental and human health are developed for four land uses and include measures to protect groundwater. All jurisdictions implement the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines to varying degrees. A few provinces develop their own guidelines. Additional information is available from the National Guidelines and Standards Office of Environment Canada, at www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/ English/ceqg/default.cfm.
The Government of Canada continues to support and build on existing co-operation with the provinces and territories, by working with the CCME to enhance and protect our water resources. Since 2001, Ministers have emphasized the importance of protecting drinking water from the source to the tap. This source-to-tap approach reflects the need to protect our rivers, lakes and aquifers, as well as the importance of strong guidelines for the protection of water quality and ecosystem health developed collaboratively by health and environment ministries. For more information, visit the CCME's "Source to Tap" Web site at www.ccme.ca/sourcetotap.
Question 4
- Will the Minister recommend the development of a comprehensive Water Act for Canada?
Response
The federal government currently has an effective suite of tools and instruments, including legislation, which permits federal departments to engage in aspects of water management within our defined responsibilities.
Under Canada's Constitution, the primary jurisdiction for water resources management, including water quality, rests with the provinces. They were accorded the jurisdiction over property and civil rights, control over local works and undertakings, and the management of natural resources, including water.
The provinces have the authority under their legislation to grant water licences or authorizations for water uses, the construction of dams and other works in lakes and streams and water takings, etc.
Federal jurisdiction in water management is derived from its exclusive legislative jurisdiction over fisheries, navigation, relations with foreign governments and treaty making, federal lands and lands reserved for Indians, and criminal law.
Federal involvement in water management is based on a number of Acts, the most important being the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. As you are probably aware, the first two acts establish the basis for federal efforts in water quality issues and management.
Another key piece of legislation is the Canada Water Act (CWA). The CWA is an enabling act that allows the federal Minister of the Environment to enter into co-operative arrangements with the provinces in such areas as data collection, water resources studies, joint programs and research studies.
The federal government adopted the Federal Water Policy in 1987. It is a statement of the federal government's goals for the nation's freshwater resources. Since the provinces exercise direct control over many aspects of water management, the federal government seeks a joint and co-operative approach with the provinces to achieve these goals.
The questions addressed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as the minister responsible for the national commemoration program, now fall under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment.
Question 1
- What criteria were used for determining the former Turner Valley Gas Plant to be a national historic site?
Response
Any aspect of Canada's human history may be considered for Ministerial designation of national historic significance. More specifically, a place may be designated a national historic site by virtue of a direct association with a nationally significant aspect of Canadian history. In this instance, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC) determined that the oil and gas extraction industry was a major aspect of the mining theme in Canada and critically important to the country's economic development. The HSMBC further determined that the petroleum industry in Alberta was an important aspect of this theme and asked Parks Canada to undertake a survey of places associated with the petroleum industry with potential suitability for commemoration.
In November 1995, the HSMBC considered a research paper on the Turner Valley Gas Plant and, on the basis of this information, recommended it for designation as a national historic site because: 1) it is central to the history of petroleum extraction technology and it is the earliest and only surviving example of its kind in Canada; and 2) it is the most significant in situ resource associated with the Turner Valley petroleum field. Moreover, the site encapsulates the historical character of the field.
Question 2
- Was an assessment of any kind done to determine the safety of the former gas plant as a national historic site given that it was confirmed to be a contaminated site in 1987?
Response
Under the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, the role and mandate of the HSMBC is to determine whether a subject brought forward for its consideration is of national historic significance. The usual form of commemoration is by means of a bronze plaque installed at the site; this does not require an assessment of whether the site is contaminated. In October 2001, Parks Canada approved a Conservation and Presentation Plan for Turner Valley Gas Plant National Historic Site of Canada, which was prepared in partnership with the Alberta government. The Plan acknowledges the contamination at the Turner Valley Gas Plant and states that the Site's heritage values will be respected by all those whose decisions or actions affect the Site, for example, when contaminants are removed or managed to reduce risk to the surrounding environment or the visiting public. Any environmental clean-up projects or actions are expected to be handled in a way that respects the cultural values of the Site.
Question 3
- Who was involved in making the determination that the former Turner Valley Gas Plant was an appropriate choice as a national historic site?
Response
In June 1987, the HSMBC was informed that the Government of Alberta had an interest in exploring with Parks Canada the possibility of co-operating in the conservation and eventual interpretation of one resource, or perhaps a number of resources, associated with the petroleum industry. The Government of Alberta, which owns Turner Valley Gas Plant National Historic Site, has maintained an ongoing interest in developing this site with Parks Canada, although federal funds have not been forthcoming.
In November 1995, the HSMBC evaluated the national historic significance of the Site and recommended its designation to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister responsible for the national commemoration program at the time. Parks Canada supports the HSMBC in the conduct of its business, including the preparation of historic papers for the consideration of the HSMBC and implementing the Minister's decisions with respect to appropriate forms of commemoration. Commemoration may include the installation of a bronze plaque, the contribution of funds to the site owner to assist with its conservation and presentation, or the acquisition of a site by Parks Canada.
Question 4
- What actions will the Minister be taking now that the site has been closed to the public and that it has been publicly confirmed to be contaminated?
Response
No further action with respect to the closure of Turner Valley Gas Plant National Historic Site is expected, at this time. The Minister's interest under the national commemoration program is to ensure that the cultural resources of this national historic site are respected, and that the closure of the Turner Valley Gas Plant to the public does not appear to compromise these resources. The issues of public access and contamination at the Site are the responsibility of the Site owner— the Government of Alberta.