Evidence of meeting #83 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was utilities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)) Liberal Judy Sgro
I call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to order.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 7, 2017, we have the study of water quality.
Mr. Aubin, welcome back. We've missed having you at our committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Welcome to our witnesses.
From the Canadian Water Network, we have Bernadette Conant, chief executive officer.
From the Ontario Water Works Association, we have Michèle Grenier, executive director.
As individuals, from the Centre for Water Resources Studies in the faculty of engineering at Dalhousie University, we have Graham Gagnon, professor, and Benjamin Trueman, Ph.D. student.
Thank you all.
Please try to keep your comments to no more than five minutes, or I'll have to cut you off so that the members can have an opportunity to ask their questions.
Ms. Conant, would you like to lead off?
Bernadette Conant Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Water Network
I'd be pleased to. Thank you.
Good afternoon, first of all, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on this important topic.
My name is Bernadette Conant, and I'm the CEO of Canadian Water Network.
CWN is a national non-profit that serves as a trusted broker of research insights for use in the water sector. Our focus is on bringing about evidence-informed decisions about water. Of relevance today, part of the groundbreaking research supported by Canadian Water Network was on lead in drinking water. That work was led primarily by Dr. Michèle Prévost at l'École Polytechnique in Montreal and Professor Graham Gagnon of Dalhousie University, who is with us today. Both those researchers are internationally renowned professionals, and they've won prestigious awards for their work in that specific area.
The current focal point of CWN's programming is its Canadian Municipal Water Consortium. That's a nationwide collaboration of progressive water leaders who are advancing water management in Canada's cities and communities. It brings together practitioners, government, industry, academics, and other non-governmental groups to anticipate, respond, and adapt to water challenges facing our cities and communities. The topics are broad, but the focus is on community water management issues.
The leadership group of that consortium currently includes senior executives from the water utilities of 19 different municipalities from right across Canada—from Victoria to Halifax—and they collectively serve over 50% of the Canadian population.
To ensure that the consortium then is guided by an understanding of the key challenges these water practitioners face, we continually engage the consortium leadership group in discussions about existing and emerging priorities, assessing how the current knowledge base that's available can help address those needs or, conversely, determine what's needed to better support their decisions or actions.
It's from that position of being deeply engaged with that municipal water management and the research communities that I want to bring to you three key observations that I hope will basically set the framing for today's discussions and allow the other witnesses to give you the details that are helpful. Some of this repeats some of the pieces that your committee has talked about.
First, the public health issue of lead in drinking water and its relationship to lead in buried pipes and home fixtures is widespread. That's an important thing to communicate to the committee, from our experience. It's a recognized national issue of expressed importance by water utilities and cities right across Canada, and indeed internationally.
Second, the issue of lead in drinking water is different from other conventional concerns about water safety, such as pathogens. That is specific because it's not so much about the quality of the water produced by the drinking water plants or the supplies, but rather what happens to the chemistry of that water, how it changes as it makes its way through the distribution system, particularly, as you've talked about, within homes and buildings.
Third, research has shown quite convincingly that ingestion of lead is a problem even at very low levels, particularly for children. The current expectation based on experience in research is that we ultimately need to remove the lead pipes to address it over the long term. In fact, the partial replacement of lead pipes that you've discussed—so that replacement of part of the delivery on the public side, but not the private side—can actually make the problem worse, at least in the near term.
It's an important and not an isolated problem. Addressing the problem is complicated because it involves both public and private ownership, each having different sets of regulations, responsibilities, and liabilities. Addressing it effectively, therefore, requires action to be taken by both utilities and the public. If we're going to tackle it, both of those are required.
For the Canadian Water Network, lead is an issue that undeniably underscores the importance of going beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of water utilities or federal-provincial boundaries, which is always a challenge, I find, when we have these discussions at committee. However, we have to go beyond that if we're really concerned about public health as the ultimate goal.
Why is it relevant, and indeed important, to this particular committee? From my point of view, it's because the solution to this national public health problem involves many players, but it's ultimately about infrastructure. It's about addressing the lead in pipes in water systems. A solution to the problem therefore requires effectively addressing drinking water infrastructure all the way to the tap. Being successful at that is going to require coordinated action.
A couple of the main needs that you've discussed previously are determining the size and nature of the problem. To some degree, we know there is a problem, and different jurisdictions have lots of detailed information. Some have none. Therefore, we can conjecture about the size, but we really don't know the extent and the numbers in Canada of the—
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Water Network
Funding incentives through government programs to accelerate action are needed. The committee can make recommendations about how that federal infrastructure funding is allocated and structured to help both those public and private issues. That's the role that we think is the important one here.
Thank you, Chair.
Michèle Grenier Executive Director, Ontario Water Works Association
Thank you.
My name is Michèle Grenier. I'm the executive director of the Ontario Water Works Association. We're a section of the American Water Works Association, which is the largest organization of water supply professionals in the world. The Canadian section was founded in 1916 and currently represents over 200 utilities across Canada that supply drinking water to more than 50% of all Canadians.
Our response to the proposed Health Canada guidelines was submitted as part of the AWWA Canadian affairs committee. We recognize that lead exposure from other sources has decreased significantly since the 1970s, and as a result the impacts from drinking water are now much more significant. In general, the committee's comments support the health-based approach for establishing the new objective, but we also want to emphasize the importance of corrosion control as part of the strategy, in addition to lead service line replacements.
The four key recommendations that were outlined in the Canadian affairs committee's remarks are around the interpretation of the proposed maximum acceptable concentration of lead, and that it must be representative of the water that people are consuming. Clarification is needed in terms of the application of the MAC as it relates to standing versus flush samples and the duration of the required stagnation period. The increased cost of the sampling analysis and the processing time must also be recognized.
Second, the achievability of the new MAC is an issue. The regulatory standard in Ontario is consistent with the existing Health Canada guidelines, and there are over 30 utilities that are already under orders to implement corrosion control. With the decrease in the proposed concentration, the number will increase by an additional 20. These represent significant costs that will be transmitted directly to ratepayers.
In addition, we have limited data so far that would determine whether or not the implementation of these corrosion control programs will allow municipalities to reliably achieve a reduction in lead levels from 10 parts per billlion to five parts per billion.
On the issue of lead service line replacement, we feel this is really the key area in which the federal government can have a role. As Bernadette mentioned, funding is a big issue, given that the private-side replacement is as important as the public-side replacement when it comes to the lead service line. There's been limited uptake so far on private-side lead service line replacement, mainly because it's difficult to explain to a homeowner why the replacement is required. In addition, the municipality has limited funding tools available to it in order to ensure that this portion of the work is completed.
We'd also like to highlight the timing of the implementation of the new standard. In many jurisdictions, the new guideline will come into effect immediately by reference in operating permits or existing regulations, whereas corrosion control studies can take months of planning and piloting before it's possible to roll them out at full scale. We request that additional time and guidance be provided to transition to the new framework.
Similarly, there's a requirement in the Safe Drinking Water Act in Ontario that makes elected officials personally liable for the operation of the drinking water system. The new standard in the proposed Health Canada guidelines for achieving lead levels that are as low as reasonably achievable becomes essentially indefensible for a municipal councillor unless additional guidance is provided to document and determine what is considered reasonably achievable.
In general, OWWA's position has been described as a three-pronged approach, whereby we would advocate for public-side lead service line replacement and private-side lead service line replacement, in addition to monitoring and sampling water quality and implementing effective corrosion control. The corrosion control element is often overlooked and is really essential, especially in larger buildings such as schools, where there is extensive plumbing and also contributions from lead components in the system, such as brass or lead solder, in facilities constructed pre-1980. It's an important focus that shouldn't be overlooked.
Last but not least, we highlight other similar federal programs, such as the Energy Star rebate programs, which provide incentives for homeowners to upgrade their existing appliances and whatnot to improve their energy efficiency. A similar program would allow homeowners to fund their lead service line replacement other than through municipal tax rolls or municipally offered financing.
Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I will be pleased to answer questions in French as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Ms. Grenier.
Next we have the two gentlemen from Dalhousie University.
Could we get your comments, please?
Professor Graham Gagnon Professor, Centre for Water Resources Studies, Faculty of Engineering, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Thank you.
My name is Graham Gagnon. I am a professor at Dalhousie University. I'm the director of the Centre for Water Resources Studies and I'm also the NSERC/Halifax Water industrial research chair in water quality and treatment at Dalhousie.
With me today is Mr. Ben Trueman, a Ph.D. student from our lab. Ben has worked with me for the past five years on many lead projects, working directly with Halifax Water and other utilities in our region and across Canada.
Our research team has been looking at corrosion since 1998, when I started at Dalhousie. In particular, we have been addressing lead in drinking water since about 2008, when we first started looking at lead solder in copper pipes. Over these years it has been clear to us how complex the problem is with lead in drinking water.
In particular, in 2011 our research group at Dalhousie started an important study that investigated lead service line replacement, in collaboration with Halifax Water. In the first phase of the work, Halifax Water asked whether we can provide safe water through partial lead service line replacement.
As was touched on, a partial lead service line replacement refers to the fact that in most areas, the water utility is responsible for water infrastructure from the water main to some area on the property line. The homeowner is therefore responsible for the remaining part of the service line.
After four years of data collection, we published two papers. One paper was awarded the best paper by the Journal – American Water Works Association. Another was published last year in Environmental Science & Technology. This four-year study revealed that a partial lead service line replacement was an inadequate solution. Indeed, for many homes, the situation actually worsened following a partial lead service line replacement.
In contrast, our data showed that a full lead service line replacement was the best way to ensure the household would see lower lead levels at the tap and that partial lead service replacements were not recommended. Because of this important research, Halifax Water does not conduct partial lead service line replacements anymore.
A colleague of mine, Dr. Michèle Prévost, published similar work in 2017. In studying lead service line replacements in Montreal, Dr. Prévost's team found that the lowest levels of lead were found when a full service line replacement was conducted. These findings are consistent with our work and with recommendations from the United States National Drinking Water Advisory Council, or NDWAC, to reduce lead in the home.
In addition to studying lead service line replacements, our team has studied corrosion control. Corrosion control is a process whereby water utilities can chemically alter their water to minimize lead release. Even after lead service lines have been replaced, there is still a need to have corrosion control, as lead exists in solder, brass, drinking water fountains, and many household and commercial fixtures. Thus, full lead service line replacement removes the largest lead source, but corrosion control is still necessary for managing risks from these other sources.
Our research with Halifax Water has shown that orthophosphates are highly effective at managing lead. After two years of data collection, we determined that an increase of phosphate from 0.5 milligrams per litre to 1 milligram per litre reduced the burden of lead at the tap by more than 30%. Of course, there are other possible strategies that utilities can address for corrosion control, but what is important to recognize is that a utility might have to wait 12 to 18 months for these changes to reveal their effectiveness.
I'm presently working with the City of Regina to further minimize lead at the tap, even though Regina has very few lead service line occurrences. This work is just getting started, and it's becoming clear to us and to the City of Regina how complex the situation will be for them.
Our team has also investigated lead occurrence in first nation communities in Atlantic Canada. Although compliance on flushed samples is greater than 90%, we have found that non-compliant lead samples exist across 85% of Atlantic Canadian first nation communities. We have also published similar work on lead occurrences we found in communities in Nunavut. In other words, lead is ubiquitous in first nation communities as well.
It is recognized by utilities and first nation communities that minimizing lead is important for public health. Health Canada has now proposed a lower maximum acceptable concentration for lead, as described by my colleagues. This guideline is combined with a sampling strategy that effectively will change the paradigm for monitoring lead across Canada.
While I support the intent of lowering lead levels at the tap, after years of studying this issue, I can say that a very sufficient and long time will be required for utilities to get to an answer.
Prof. Graham Gagnon
Yes.
I would recommend that the federal government find an active path to assist homeowners and utilities in minimizing lead at the tap. Such pathways could include technical and financial assistance for lead service line replacements for homeowners, a framework and financial assistance for first nation communities, and technical and financial assistance for municipal units as they find solutions to address their specific corrosion control challenges.
Thank you again. I welcome questions.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you very much.
I want to ask the first two people who presented if they support reducing lead from 10 parts per billion to five.
Do you have a position on that?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Water Network
I think yes. Most people I deal with would say that there's not a big difference between 10 and five. One of the challenges in the focus on the numbers is the idea that 10 wasn't safe but five is now safe. Graham and others can speak more to that. It's really a matter of a number that's as low as it's reasonable to go with the analytical technology.
Whether the number is 10 or five might be the trigger when people have to do things, I think, but to me that's a bit of a red herring. I don't think that's the big issue here. The issue is how the sampling paradigm is changing.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Okay. On that, there was an October 2017 article in the Toronto Star about 640 schools and day cares that failed the 10 parts per billion test. I'm guessing those are all to do with internal lead pipes. I know they're changing their testing formula—or I think they are—so that it's not one tap per year but all the taps, twice at standing after six hours and then after the water has been run through the pipes for a while.
Is it the federal government's responsibility to replace the pipes in provincial schools, or should the provinces, the school boards, and the ministries of education really take a lead on this? These are children, by and large, and teachers, and one of the numbers you provided in your presentation was 200,000 households. Shouldn't it really be the priority to get that cleaned up first?
Executive Director, Ontario Water Works Association
In terms of the schools, the most recent report from the chief drinking water inspector in Ontario has data on lead exceedances in schools. About 4% of schools have exceedances on either standing or flushed samples, or 4% of samples exceed the MAC on standing or flushed. By and large, that number will increase should the standard be reduced.
Executive Director, Ontario Water Works Association
In general, most schools do not have lead service lines. The source of lead in schools tends to be from brass, because until 2014 even lead-free brass had 8% lead. It's often a tin-lead solder combination from pre-1990 construction, but we've also seen an increase in lead concentrations in newly constructed schools. In general, any metal that's exposed to water for the first time will have a higher tendency to leach if the water is aggressive. Again, the importance of corrosion control is fundamental, particularly when it comes to schools and larger institutions.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I have a question on that. Virtually all new homes—I'll just speak to Ontario—if they're made by a developer, I think would have no metal at all in their water system inside the home. Are there still schools being built today that have some combination of metal that allows the lead to leach in?
Executive Director, Ontario Water Works Association
By and large, it's still copper piping. There is a requirement for lead-free brass and lead-free solder. Again, it's what the definition of “lead-free” traditionally has been that has been problematic.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Okay.
Does anybody know if you're granted a...? I'm from Ontario, so I'll speak to that.
A number of years ago, they would have gone through all their asset management to know how old all the pipes were and which ones needed to be replaced, etc. I'm guessing that if you do a water replacement or a road repair, most of the lines are replaced. Because they're identified, should the government put a priority on those so that they're replaced first? Is that a suggestion we could put forward?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Water Network
In terms of if it's a priority—
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Well, if there's an infrastructure grant to a town or a city, the priority would be given to that street where there are still lead pipes in place.
Prof. Graham Gagnon
If I may, I'll address the issue of fountains. Then I'll answer the question on roads.
You asked about the role of the federal government in the issue of fountains. We conducted a project that looked at fountains at Dalhousie University, and we found fountains that were actually lead-lined. They had chillers in them, and the chillers inside were lead-lined. We sampled the first 250 millilitres, as per Health Canada's guideline, and we found exceedances of lead as high as 80 micrograms or 100 micrograms per litre.
Why is that a federal issue? Canada has a trade agreement with the United States. In the early nineties, when the lead and copper rule was being passed in the United States, fountains with lead liners were recalled in the United States. Canada, through the standards committee, did not have a recall mechanism or any standard on fountains. Through the trade agreement, these fountains were then sold across the border into Canada and installed. We have evidence that a number of fountains that were completely not to be used in the United States were sold in Canada. You'd be hard pressed to ask a school in Ontario to be aware of the trade agreements and to be aware of what was being recalled in the United States from a procurement standpoint. The Government of Canada, through their standards committee, would have that information.
The issue of prioritization on lead pipes in streets is of course an important issue. You have to remember that a water main is different from a lead service line. A water main is buried infrastructure in the road, which is managed by the utility through normal asset management practices of the utility. The lead service line component is the tricky part. The service line is managed jointly by the municipality and the homeowner.
