Good afternoon and thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to provide testimony as it relates to the federal contaminated site in Fort Chipewyan. I'm testifying today from the traditional and ancestral lands of first nations and Métis people now referred to as Treaty 6.
As a toxicologist and professional biologist practising in Alberta, I provide technical expertise on health risks and toxicity-related issues to each of the three nations testifying here today. Prior to this, I was a senior toxicologist at the Alberta Energy Regulator, but I began my career as a consultant focusing on environmental site and health risk assessments at contaminated sites.
When ACFN became aware of the designation of the Transport Canada wharf commonly referred to as the big dock, as it was a federal contaminated site, they requested technical support in understanding what exactly that meant and if there could be health risks to community members from the traditional activities shared by ACFN, Fort Chip Métis and MCFN, who are here today. To support this request, I focused my review on the 2017 human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment and ecological risk assessment, which I'll refer to as the risk assessment, by Millennium EMS Solutions, which relied on the phase 3 environmental site assessment conducted by EGE Engineering Services. These studies referenced the previous studies since 1997, but those were not available to me and I have not reviewed them.
Briefly, there were six different areas of potential concern with identified contamination of soil, sediment and groundwater at the big dock. This is not uncommon at docks across Canada, but what is uncommon is that there was a lack of notification in 2014 when the TC wharf was classified as a class 2 contaminated site under the national classification system for contaminated sites. This designation suggests that action is likely required, because those sites have a high potential for adverse off-site impacts. The lack of notification by Transport Canada to the three nations appears to be a failure of successive federal governments as to step 3 of the federal contaminated sites action plan, which directs notification and engagement of nearby stakeholders.
The sources of contamination were due to activities such as fuelling barges, fuel storage, construction materials and spills over the years. Contamination was identified and not fully delineated, a deficiency of the 2017 phase 3 ESA, for several classes of chemicals, including metals, volatile organic hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum hydrocarbons. From a toxicological perspective, several health effects can be experienced from exposure to these chemicals, including but not limited to cancers of the digestive tract and blood and lymphatic systems, non-carcinogenic effects on the neurological system and kidneys, and skin rashes.
In the interest of time, I would like to first speak to why I could not answer the question posed to me by the three nations. The main technical inaccuracy identified in my review of the risk assessment conducted by the third party consultants, which would have limited its usefulness in managing health risks and determining remedial objectives—the stated intent—is that the consultant incorrectly classified the site as commercial use, effectively limiting the assessment of human exposure. That is inaccurate given the reliance of community members on the big dock for their traditional way of life.
From table D in the speaking notes provided, it is evident that the majority of human health exposure pathways were determined by the consultant to be inoperable, and, as such, they were excluded from the risk assessment. This means the risk assessment did not assess or provide results for potential risks from the ingestion of traditional foods and medicines. This is in a northern community with a 91% indigenous population and well-documented reliance on the land and water for traditional diets. It did not assess the potential risks from contact with contaminated soils or contact with contaminated sediments or the surface water. This finding is inconsistent with recent communications from the Minister of Transport's office and a letter received by ACFN, which states that the studies previously undertaken at the site have not identified any risks to human health or the environment, and the department has no indication that these circumstances have changed.
As I have shown here, human health exposure pathways specific to the three nations in Fort Chipewyan were not assessed, and the full extent of potential risks to community members from exposure to contamination at the TC wharf through ingestion of foods and medicines and exposure to contaminated media is unknown. Notably—and this is not reflected in recent Transport Canada communications—the risk assessment did predict potential risks to human health if groundwater was consumed. This is important, as the risk assessment predicted that exposure to benzene, 2-methylnaphthalene and PHC F2 concentrations in groundwater could pose potential risks if people were consuming it. The risk assessment recommended follow-up studies to document the use of domestic water wells that were identified in the area. There's no evidence that these were followed through on by the government.
This is more concerning and is evidence of poor professional practice by the consultant when the potential effect of benzene exposure to cause cancers of the blood and bone systems are considered along with the most recent reporting of cancer incidents by the Alberta government in the community of Fort Chipewyan. This notably has not been updated for over a decade.
As shown in figure 2 in the speaking notes, the consultant did not establish the baseline community health condition or consider the higher-than-expected cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan, which have been documented and reported by the Alberta government since 2009. There are a higher number of observed cases of biliary tract cancers, cancers of the blood and lymphatic system, lung cancer, and all types of cancers, as reconfirmed in 2014.
Am I out of time?