Seepage

It’s a fragile thing. Our trust in government to protect us, to keep us safe from the dangers in the world around us, is fundamental to this relationship. We grumble and complain about how they spend our money, the priorities they choose and the decisions they make, but at the core of our idea about government is that it will keep us safe, particularly when things become dicey.

All this can, and does, fall apart, however, when this trust is eroded.

So, what to make of an order issued to Picton Terminals last month? The Enforcement Branch of Environment Canada (EC) reported that its inspectors found extremely high levels of chloride, cyanide and aluminum entering the bay—in amounts many times greater than permitted. Amounts lethal to fish and other aquatic creatures.

With these findings, has EC ordered an injunction? A stop work order? A cease and desist order?

No, none of the above. EC’s direction to Picton Terminals is that it “take all reasonable measures…to prevent the above. Develop a plan to manage salt piles and runoff.” And, prepare a report that these things have been done by January 15. If it doesn’t comply, the company is liable for stiff fines, cost recovery and sanctions.

Still, it seems a poor response.

It isn’t as though inspectors found the runoff was a just bit over the limit. In fact, it found that the amount of chloride running off into Picton Bay was 178 times the level allowed. One hundred and seventy eight times.

According to an expert opinion cited by EC, water containing this much chloride “would be acutely lethal and deleterious to fish and vertebrates.” Acutely lethal.

That seems bad. Yet, there is no action required of the port facility other than to “take reasonable measures” and to “prepare a plan”. The response seems lacking in proportion to the findings.

Cyanide levels entering freshwater should be no more than five micrograms per litre of water according to the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. EC inspectors found 1,000 times that concentration, at 5,690 micrograms per litre in the runoff from Picton Terminals. Aluminum in the runoff sample was thirteen times the amount permitted. Iron was ten times the allowed limit.

These regulations, by definition, are in place to protect fish and other life in Picton Bay. But what about the humans who rely on this water to drink? To cook and clean? What are we to make of this data?

It seems reasonable that we might expect the federal folks looking out for the fish would also coordinate with their counterparts at the province’s Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to safeguard the humans and other creatures. We simply don’t know if this is happening.

We do know the County received the EC report at roughly the same time as the public did. Municipal waterworks chief Robert McAuley says it is too soon for his department to draw any firm conclusions. Yet he doesn’t have a concern about the safety of the drinking water supply due the diligent and ongoing water sampling and monitoring that is done at the Picton water treatment plant. (More on Page 3)

Perhaps we are over-worrying. Perhaps the fish are the canaries in the coal mine—our early warning system. Perhaps amounts that might be lethal to fish, may be absorbed without negative consequences for humans.

The troubling bit is that we simply don’t know, and there are few answers forthcoming. The Times has reached out to Environment Canada, MOECC and the County’s waterworks department. Yet simple, clear answers remain elusive.

We welcome anyone with the expertise and experience in our community to share their insights as to the level of risk, if any, posed by the runoff from this storage facility.

Some argue that this facility has moved salt in and out of port for decades. They offer this as evidence that the runoff is benign, that if harm was being done it would be evident.

But that explanation is not entirely satisfactory. It seems a great deal more salt is being stored at this facility than ever before. It is also piled closer to the cliff’s edge. Then, there is the “acutely lethal” description offered by EC as to the risk to fish.

The bottom line is that we don’t know if runoff containing 1,000 times the permissible amount of cyanide flowing into Picton Bay is a risk beyond that posed to the fish that swim in the bay. Or at what concentrations cyanide, chloride, aluminum and iron become toxic to the larger animals who rely on this bay for water.

In any event, the response seems inadequate. Directing only that the facility not to do it again, and to develop a plan better manage runoff—months after the fact, seems wholly insufficient.

We need better answers. County residents are accustomed to being disappointed by the provincial agencies entrusted to safeguard the natural world and our collective health and safety as it relates to industrial wind and solar development. There is only so much more erosion this trust can endure.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca