A hazardous waste processing facility owned by the Alberta government was granted permission by the same government to operate without mercury monitoring equipment for years, despite such monitoring being a condition of its operating permit.
The Swan Hills Treatment Centre is owned by Alberta Infrastructure and operated by a contractor — previously French multinational Suez until that company’s merger with another French waste management giant, Veolia.
The facility, which opened in 1987 on a site 10 kilometres northeast of the town of Swan Hills, has a history of malfunctions and explosions that have resulted in environmental contamination.
In January of this year the law charity Ecojustice, on behalf of two clients, requested an investigation under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.
In a reply the following month explaining its conclusions, Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEPA) said that no sanctions were warranted because Alberta Infrastructure and its contractor were in “frequent communication” with AEPA and “self-reported that continuous monitoring could not be completed due to the [equipment] not recording appropriately.”
The continuous monitoring equipment became operational in December 2023, nearly three years after the Jan. 1, 2021, deadline for compliance.
“We feel that that this was not a reasonable decision, that it’s not acceptable to not have mercury monitoring at a hazardous waste treatment plant for more than three years,” Ecojustice lawyer Susanne Calabrese said in an interview.
AEPA defended its handling of the situation, saying proactive communication by the permit holders about the monitoring issues was sufficient.
‘Numerous challenges’
The current operating permit for the facility was issued by AEPA in December 2019. It included deadlines for compliance with specific requirements. Three of these requirements are central to Ecojustice’s complaint:
- Continuously monitor mercury emissions starting Jan. 1, 2021.
- Submit a mercury emissions study by Dec. 31, 2022.
- Meet a specific mercury emissions target starting Jan. 1, 2023.
According to AEPA, a mercury analyzer was installed in 2020. However, there were multiple issues with the device that prevented continuous mercury monitoring.
Ecojustice obtained several documents, including reports and correspondence, through requests under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act or through the Environmental Appeals Board.
The documents show that Suez wrote to AEPA in December 2022 acknowledging “numerous challenges” with installing the mercury analyzer, which was “still not operational” nearly two years after the deadline to begin continuous mercury monitoring, and 11 days before the deadline to submit a mercury emissions study.
The company requested that the deadline for the study be extended to June 30, 2023. AEPA replied in late May 2023, granting an extension to Sept. 30, 2023.
Request for investigation
In January 2024, Ecojustice wrote to AEPA on behalf of two clients, Wendy Freeman and April Isadore, requesting an investigation of several specific offences related to mercury monitoring and reporting.
The following month, AEPA said in a letter that the investigation was complete and no sanctions would be issued. The central reason cited was the “due diligence” of Alberta Infrastructure and its contracted operators, who had “frequent communication with [AEPA] to self-report and discuss continuous monitoring issues.”
In its response to Ecojustice, AEPA confirmed that the continuous monitoring equipment was not operating until December 2023, pointing to this fact to explain why “the parties could not verify that the emissions were within the [permit] limits and monthly reports could not be completed.”
Lack of monitoring ‘very concerning’
“If it’s been identified as such a major problem that we’re supposed to monitor, not monitoring it is very concerning to me,” said Shira Joudan, an assistant professor of environmental analytical chemistry at the University of Alberta.
“It also means that any sort of future research is going to be way more laborious. Doing field sampling to make these measurements later … think about how much work goes into that compared to the real-time monitoring that could prevent so much. Both future work, but future uncertainty as well.”
Health Canada describes mercury as “a global contaminant because it is toxic, does not break down in the environment and can build up in living things.” The department warns that people exposed to high levels of mercury “may experience health problems ranging from rashes to birth defects, even death in cases of extreme poisoning.”
Officials respond
Ryan Fournier, press secretary to Rebecca Schulz, Alberta’s minister of environment and protected areas, defended AEPA’s handling of the situation.
In an emailed statement, Fournier said the permit only requires monitoring while the facility is operating, and that the plant was shut down for various reasons, such as maintenance or forest fires, on about 300 days between January 2021 and December 2023. (There are over 1,000 total days in that period.)
Fournier noted that, in lieu of continuous monitoring, “a manual stack survey was completed, and the 2022 Environmental Monitoring Annual Report submitted to EPA shows that the incinerator stack emissions were below the approval limits for mercury.”
A manual stack survey is a measurement of emissions from stationary sources. Multiple manual stack surveys were performed at the Swan Hills facility during the period in question. A September 2021 letter from Suez to AEPA shows that 2021 survey results were 20 times the required limit.
“The problem with selecting certain time points is you’re not getting a full understanding of what’s happening,” Joudan said. “It could just be that that day there’s less mercury emitted, right? So we have no sense. And if you’re not getting the full picture, you really can’t understand the impact of what’s being emitted.”
An air monitoring report for 2022 prepared by Suez notes that mercury emissions limits were also exceeded during the 2019 biomedical manual stack survey.
The report also notes other instances where the facility failed to meet conditions of its permit, including several days where mercury emissions were above the mandatory limit, and not submitting reports by required deadlines.
Veolia referred all questions to Alberta Infrastructure as the owner of the facility.
CBC News sent multiple questions to Alberta Infrastructure, including queries about why it took so long to fix the monitoring equipment. CBC also requested a copy of the mercury emissions study completed earlier this year.
In response, a spokesperson said only: “Veolia is the contracted operator of the facility. A requirement of their contract is to have a valid permit from [AEPA], which they have maintained throughout their operation of the facility.”
Calabrese said it’s simply not reasonable that a global waste management firm like Veolia could not get the proper equipment working for multiple years.
Costly cleanup expected
The Swan Hills Treatment Centre has been processing various types of hazardous materials since it opened in 1987. But it also has a troubled history of environmental contamination, including from “uncontrolled emissions” such as furnace malfunctions or explosions.
One such incident in 1996 caused the release of PCBs, dioxins and other toxic compounds. A health and risk assessment study was ordered by the government, resulting in consumption advisories for wild game and fish. Those warnings, though less restrictive today, are still in effect, most recently updated in 2012.
The facility is slated to close after 2025, followed by a remediation process for the contaminated site estimated at $223 million.
Meanwhile, Ecojustice wants to see action to prevent further contamination, both in this particular case and in the future.
“I would like to see better enforcement done by Alberta Environment so that … operators actually follow the requirements in their approvals,” said Calabrese.
“And I would like to see Alberta Environment reopen this investigation and take some sort of enforcement action against the approval holders.”