This investigation is a cross-border collaboration between The Narwhal and Environmental Health News.

SAULT STE. MARIE, Mich. — A January storm has covered the bungalows here in sparkling snow. Men wearing gloves and hats pulled over their ears steer snow-blowers in and out of driveways, launching powder into the air.

This small city in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula is where the state kisses Ontario. An international bridge connects them across the St. Marys River that flows between Lake Superior and Lake Huron. The river marks the international border between the U.S. and Canada.

Photographer Christopher Katsarov Luna drives slowly. I turn around in the passenger seat to watch Torry Ruddell in the back, her brown hair falling as she hunches over hand-drawn maps of the area. Many houses are coloured red, indicating that at least one person there has or had cancer.

“Down there my great-grandparents lived,” Ruddell, 44, points.

“It’s got a red circle,” I notice.

“Yeah, my great grandmother, my grandmother, my great aunt and all of my aunts had breast cancer,” she says in a matter-of-fact tone. “My great grandfather had skin cancer.” Her mother also survived uterine and cervical cancer.

We keep driving. “Those people right here, their son had brain cancer,” she says. “He passed away when we were young, still in high school.”

Ruddell holds a homemade map depicting incidences of cancer and other serious or rare illness in households surrounding the Northwestern Leather Company tannery, which dumped toxic chemicals, including chromium-6, into the local environment for half a century in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

There are other serious illnesses on the map, too, including heart and autoimmune diseases and deformities. But the homes in red are what we focus on. 

Many things can increase one’s risk of developing cancer — genetics, smoking, exposure to the sun or radon gas — but there’s no doubt in her mind what’s making people sick.

Ruddell grew up across the street from the Northwestern Leather Company tannery that once stood in this area. From 1900 until it closed in 1958, it dumped toxic chemicals on site. Testing in the late 1970s by Sault Ste. Marie State College and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources found especially high levels of hexavalent chromium in the soil and groundwater.

Hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, is a chemical made infamous by the film Erin Brockovich, which tells the true story of how Pacific Gas & Electric contaminated drinking water with chromium-6 in the town of Hinkley, Calif., causing people to develop cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as carcinogenic to humans, and studies have shown that workers exposed to chromium-6 have a higher instance of lung cancer. Even at low levels, chromium-6 can cause dermatitis and skin ulcers.

A man clears snow after a winter storm, in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Michigan tannery site was remediated in 2007, but data obtained by non-profit organization the Environmental Working Group shows the area still has unhealthy amounts of chromium-6 in its drinking water.

As a kid, Ruddell played on the former tannery site, wading in the mud up to her neck. She picked and ate berries that caused rashes doctors couldn’t explain. There were no signs or fencing warning people to stay away.

Today, a six-foot chain-link fence surrounds the site. On the other side of the fence, there’s a sign covered in snow. I climb over and brush away the snow. It warns against digging wells for drinking water: “Buried tannery waste located on site.”

Ruddell is photographed near the site of a closed tannery where she used to play in mud contaminated with chromium-6 in the community of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., on Sunday, Jan., 19, 2020. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

But the tannery isn’t the only source of pollution here. There’s a scent in the Michigan air that’s familiar to people on both sides of the river. It smells like burning tires and rotten eggs.

I ask Ruddell where it’s coming from. “That’d be from across the water there,” she says.

On the other side of the river, a brown steel plant with tall chimneys sticks out against the white landscape. Algoma Steel,  the second-largest steel plant in Canada, has stood there since 1902. It belches fumes every day of the year, including Christmas, and has a special exemption from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks allowing it to emit benzene and benzo(a)pyrene, both cancer-causing pollutants, well above provincial health standards.

It’s too late to do anything about the legacy pollution from the tannery or the steel plant, but Ruddell is part of a growing movement of people in the U.S. and Canada organizing against what they perceive as a new threat.

I remember Ruddell’s words when I first called in December: “Them plants are killing us, and they want to put another one in there.”

The Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge photographed from St. Mary’s Island, Ont. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Ring of Fire

For nearly a decade, companies and governments have eyed northern Ontario’s Ring of Fire, a circular mining concession named after the Johnny Cash song, as a promise of economic prosperity. Canadian mining company Noront Resources owns the vast majority of the mining rights in the chromite-rich region, which spans 5,000 square kilometres (2,000 square miles) of the James Bay Lowlands, one of the largest wetlands in the world.

Mining experts have their doubts about how much the Ring of Fire is actually worth, and a lack of roads in the region has hampered development for years. But a recent commitment from the Ontario government to build roads has reinvigorated Noront’s plans to mine chromite and process it in a plant the company hopes to build in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., nicknamed the Sault (pronounced ‘the Soo’).

Last year Noront entered into a 99-year lease with Algoma Steel to use a brownfield site (a site with a history of pollution) next to the steel plant to build a new ferrochrome production facility — the first of its kind in North America.

The Algoma steel plant after sunset, in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Chromite is a mineral used to make stainless steel. First it is converted into ferrochrome through a high-temperature smelting process that can produce chromium-6.

The facility would sit on the banks of the St. Marys River, which connects two massive freshwater lakes and crucial fisheries. It would also be near people’s homes, leading locals to consider selling their houses. 

One man told me his family has lived in the area since 1840, and if the plant is built, he’s moving to Panama.

First Nations leaders came forward to say they weren’t consulted. More than 50 doctors signed an open letter opposing the facility and a Facebook group called “No Ferrochrome Plant” sprung up, attracting 4,600 members. 

Cancer rates in the Sault are already high — the area has the highest age-standardized rate of cancer in Ontario and the highest provincial rates of lung and prostate cancer. Smoking is more common in the region but doesn’t fully account for the rates. The city’s P6C postal code also has double the national rate of a rare cancer, acute myeloid leukemia. A 2019 study found “disease clusters” of the leukemia in four industrial border cities, including the Sault, suggesting pollution from industry as a possible cause.

The facility will export stainless steel to the American market, but Noront says the plant will bring work predominantly to locals, creating 300 to 500 full-time and 1,500 indirect jobs.

The potential economic boost is welcome news to many locals who remember the years of instability and uncertainty when Algoma Steel, the city’s main employer, went bankrupt and was bought by another company in 2007.

Journalist Hilary Beaumont outside the Algoma Steel plant, a major employer of Sault Ste. Marie residents. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The ferrochrome facility will not increase cancer risk in the Sault, Noront president and CEO Alan Coutts insisted in an email. He says the ferrochrome smelting process the company is planning will be nothing like the Erin Brockovich story. 

As a by-product of smelting, “the ferrochrome facility may produce trace amounts of chromium-6, which will be captured on the site and destroyed,” Coutts says. Noront wants to use closed-arc furnaces, which the company says generate the smallest amounts of the toxic chemical in the industry.

“If we can’t build a plant that is safe for the employees, the citizens and the environment, we won’t build it,” Coutts says. Yet suspicions are growing around the long-term viability of Noront and the company’s ability to successfully finance its Ring of Fire and ferrochrome plant aspirations — expected to cost in the tens of billions. As The Globe and Mail reported in October, Noront is in “dire financial shape,” holding US$47.8 million in debt and, because of overhyped projections of accessible mineral value in the Ring of Fire, has had trouble attracting investors.

But those abstracted challenges for Noront have done little to alleviate the concern growing on the ground in the Sault.

Before the ferrochrome announcement, many residents were resigned to the fact that they live in an industrial city with high cancer rates. Now, the possibility of another industrial plant has awoken the fight in them.

Liam O’Conner and Tristan Charron set up an ice fishing shanty in Leigh Bay, west of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., on Jan., 18, 2020. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

‘At what cost?’

With 2,800 employees, the Algoma Steel plant is the largest employer in the Sault, providing the best paying and most stable jobs in the city. It’s the sole source of income for many families and a point of pride for residents. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau underscored the plant’s national importance when he visited workers during his May 2019 re-election campaign.

Algoma churns out steel used in manufacturing, construction, mining and more. Some of it ends up in military vehicles. “That’s a big-dollar contract for us,” says Andrew, a steelworker, who asked that his real name not be used for fear of losing his job.

Speaking over the phone, Andrew says he is grateful for his work. It provides for his family, and his benefits helped pay for his daughter’s leukemia treatment before she passed. 

She was in Grade 8 when she began complaining of pain in her ankle. The doctors in Ottawa did everything they could to keep her alive, Andrew says. She lived just long enough to graduate high school. 

“One day she’s graduating Grade 8. The next day she’s fighting for her life.”

Andrew has worked in industrial plants in Sault Ste. Marie and nearby Sudbury and it pains him to wonder if living near the plants contributed to her cancer.

“I just don’t want to see more children dying of cancer for the greed of these corporations,” he says.

To make steel, iron ore is smelted in blast furnaces where high temperatures, created by coking coal, remove impurities and add carbon. In the process, coking coal is heated to more than 1,000 C (about 1,800 F) in ovens until it forms into hard, grey rocks, known as coke.

The smelting process emits coke oven gas and sulphur, Andrew explains. It smells like rotten eggs. “It’s a putrid smell.”

Work at the plant can be dangerous and Andrew says recent events have made him question whether or not the company can keep him and other workers safe.

Machinist Jack Jonson is photographed while at work at a small mill in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Machinist Steven Grunewald, who owns a small mill in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., displays a part he is manufacturing for a machine at Algoma Tubes. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Pieces of machine parts made at Grunewald’s small mill. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

On Feb. 26, a team of Algoma Steel workers were tasked with clearing coke oven sludge from a pipe by flushing it with water, according to Mike Da Prat, president of United Steelworkers Local 2251. Suddenly the hose of the vacuum truck they were using burst, spraying liquid everywhere and exposing workers to hydrogen cyanide. Three workers were rushed to hospital.

“A person got covered in it, and some other people [inhaled] fumes from it,” Da Prat says.

Hydrogen cyanide, a colourless and extremely poisonous gas with a smell of bitter almonds, is produced in coke ovens like those used at Algoma Steel. Hydrogen cyanide is so deadly it’s used as a chemical weapon and for death row executions.

Da Prat says this wasn’t the only incident: in February, two contract workers inhaled hydrogen cyanide while cleaning a tank. They, too, ended up in hospital.

In other recent incidents, blood work revealed workers had low red blood cell counts, a telltale sign of benzene exposure, Da Prat says.

“We’ve got job safe practices and workplace procedure,” Da Prat says. “What happened is, through sloppy management, they’ve been lax, [the practices and procedures] haven’t been adhered to, they haven’t enforced them.” He says workers can’t sue Algoma; they have to file a claim through the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. 

Mike Da Prat, president of the United Steelworkers Local Union 2251, the union that represents most of Algoma’s workers, points to a photograph of the Algoma site in the union’s office in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

“It’ll be nothing unless you’ve got severe injuries.” The loss of a kidney and part of a bladder was worth $3,300 in a 2008 compensation claim, he says.

Algoma Steel spokesperson Brenda Stenta says the workers who ended up in hospital were all released. In response to the incidents, the company introduced new safety rules requiring workers to wear more personal protective equipment. The company is investigating the events alongside the steelworker unions and the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development. Stenta says worker safety is the company’s top priority and it will act on the findings of the investigation.

When Andrew heard his co-workers had been exposed to hydrogen cyanide, he felt frustrated and upset. “It’s like we are the guinea pigs for companies’ profits,” he says.

Andrew first awoke to the dangers of industry when he worked at a plant in Sudbury. The air inside was thick with dust and smoke. In the decade since he left Sudbury and moved back to the Sault, at least 10 people he worked with in Sudbury have passed away. The youngest was 39. “Most of it was cancer,” he says.

An Algoma Steel Health and Safety Manual from 1982 is photographed on Da Prat’s desk. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Da Prat keeps Algoma safety equipment on display in his office. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Da Prat says steelworkers at Algoma Steel cannot directly sue the company but can put in a claim for compensation through an insurance board. According to compensation guidelines, “loss of a kidney or a bladder a year ago was $3,300,” he says. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The conditions are similar at the Algoma Steel plant, but he doesn’t have much choice. “I know I’m putting my health on the line working there every day to provide for my family, but there’s nothing much out there in the city, ’cause it’s a steel town, eh.”

“Everybody knows the steel plant’s dirty, but it’s what built the city,” he continues. “If the steel plant did shut, this city would become a ghost town.”

Losing his daughter and friends has made Andrew think hard about the ferrochrome facility.

“It’s insane for the city to allow a smelter that will employ 300 people, maybe more, for the profit of the mining industry, where they’re not even looking at the health and safety of the population.”

A study of a ferrochrome plant in Finland found that the plant’s emissions contaminated wild berries with chromium-6 and other heavy metals. Concentrations were higher within three kilometres (about 1.8 miles) of the facility. While no one lives within a 2.5-kilometre radius of the Finland plant, people live across the street from the proposed site of Noront’s facility.

The Algoma Steel plan is visible behind this Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. residential neighbourhood. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Some Sault residents were under the impression the facility will be modelled after the Finland plant, but Coutts says that’s not the case. Noront’s chief development officer Stephen Flewelling has said the facility will be the first ferrochrome plant of its kind in the world because of its unique design.

Coutts says the design by Canadian engineering firm Hatch will use direct current electric arc smelting and preheat the ore. According to Noront, the process will recover more chromite so it can end up in the ferrochrome rather than in the leftover waste products known as slag. He says direct current results in better control and capture of chromium-6.

Coutts says the facility will also have “excellent dust control and capture,” which will allow dust from the furnace to be recycled.

Chromium-6 forms in the presence of heat and oxygen, Noront says, so the facility will smelt the ore in a non-oxygenating environment.

But Coutts says the design won’t be finalized until three to five years from now, raising the question of how the company can already be so sure of its safety.

Andrew says unemployed young people desperate for work might see the facility as a benefit to the city.

“It’s creating jobs,” he says. “But at what cost?”

Houses in the Bayview neighbourhood of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., fall within a few hundred metres of the Algoma Steel plant. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Cancer claims

Tammy Francis and her cousin Earl Dunn invite me and photographer Christopher Katsarov Luna to Reggie’s West, a cavernous dive bar frequented by steelworkers in the Sault. We sip cold beer at a table in the back where we won’t be overheard.

Francis, 55, has a small frame and long blond hair that falls in tight waves. She’s standoffish at first but quickly warms up and is unafraid to speak her mind.

She worked at the steel plant for 12 years as a contractor for a fibreglass company. “It’s the dirtiest place I’ve been in my life,” she says. “I’ve been in oil tanks and different things — that steel plant’s no comparison. I refuse to work in there any longer.”

Partly to escape conditions at Algoma Steel, she found work out West. I was lucky to meet her on a trip home as she waits for the next call from Alberta.

Francis has a big family and spends as much time with them as she can. They grew up together in a home in the P6C postal code. But in recent years, her clan has shrunk in numbers. She lost her dad in 2011, followed by her two brothers — all steelworkers, all cancer.

Francis has her dad’s eyes. Reginald Francis was 89 when he died.

Tammy Francis poses for a portrait at Reggie’s West, a bar frequented by steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Francis lost her father and two brothers — all former steelworkers — to cancer. Francis says she first learned about the proposed ferrochrome plant in a Facebook post. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Algoma Steel identity card of Tammy’s father, Reginald Francis. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

On Nov. 20, 2011, he went into the hospital with abdominal pain. The doctors found a mass in his colon. He had surgery on Nov. 22, and passed away Dec. 2.

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board records confirm he worked at the steel plant from 1947 to 1989 and succumbed to colon cancer. Tammy says he smoked cigars and a pipe until he quit in his early 40s.

The union provided The Narwhal and Environmental Health News with a list of occupational disease claims that are currently accepted by the insurance board. It details the toxic chemicals that Algoma Steel workers have been exposed to on the job — benzene, coke oven emissions and asbestos are the most common. Chromium-6 is also on the list; the insurance board says workers may develop lung cancer from cumulative exposure to chromium-6 in steel-making.

When Francis filed her dad’s compensation claim in 2011, the insurance board had a policy covering colon cancer and asbestos exposure, acknowledging an association between the two. But after reviewing his case, the adjudicator wrote in a letter to Francis that she found “limited evidence for an association between stomach cancer and colorectal cancers and exposure in asbestos industries.”

The adjudicator acknowledged her dad may have had “some exposure” to asbestos but not enough to warrant compensation.

Earl Dunn drinks a beer at Reggie’s West as his cousin, Tammy Francis, recounts her battle with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for compensation after the loss of her father. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Algoma Steel is visible from this school playground in the Sault, Ont. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

“To qualify for benefits, the evidence must show that it is more probable than not that the workplace exposures at Algoma Steel significantly contributed to the development of his colon cancer,” the adjudicator wrote. “I was not able to conclude that Mr. Francis’s colon cancer was causally related to other workplace exposures at Algoma Steel.”

Francis appealed the decision in 2013 and is still waiting for a response. She contacted the union about his case, but she doesn’t believe the union is doing enough to help.

According to the union, as of Aug. 22, 2019, there were a total of 106 colorectal cancer claims like Francis’s dad at Algoma Steel, but only 10 of those claims were accepted.

The numbers show compensation claims for cancer and other diseases are a long shot. 

Since 2001, Algoma steelworkers and their families have reported a total of 1,430 cases of serious illnesses and cancers. Of those cases, 960 claims have been denied and only 320 claims allowed.

The majority of the total — 895 claims — were for cancer. Only 164 of these were accepted by the insurance board.

In the six years between 2001 and 2007, families filed claims with the insurance board for 40 Algoma Steel workers who died due to occupational disease, according to the union. The deaths led the union to organize an intake clinic in May 2008 to reach out to the community and identify cases that had gone unreported.

Francis doesn’t care about the money. If her dad’s claim had been allowed, she says it would have meant an acknowledgement that Algoma Steel is polluting the city and causing death.

Locals set up an ice fishing tent in Leigh Bay, west of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Emissions from an industrial plant are visible in the background. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

“If I could have had one more hug, one more kiss — not a million dollars could replace that,” she says. “One more day with my father, or my brothers for that matter. I would give my life to have one more conversation.”

Francis heard about the ferrochrome plant from a Facebook post. “First, of course you think jobs for the city,” she explained. “But as soon as I started looking into it at all, I was 100 per cent against it.”

In September, a group of local doctors published an open letter suggesting they might leave town if the ferrochrome facility is built: “Such facilities are strongly associated with increased cancer rates, mortality and poor health. Our community already suffers from excessively high cancer rates, amongst the highest in Ontario.”

“The site of the Noront facility would be in the heart of our city and on the shores of the Great Lakes waterway with the potential to expose the 70,000 people in our city and the 30 million around the Great Lakes to its toxic by-products,” the letter states.

Rob Suppes, the emergency room doctor who spearheaded the letter, told me people come into the ER with injuries and he’s the first one to tell them they have cancer. It’s one of the hardest parts of his job. Sometimes they’re quiet, sometimes they have questions, sometimes they cry. Suppes, who previously practised in Winnipeg, says never before working in the Sault has he had to diagnose so many people with cancer. 

Dr. Rob Suppes was part of a drive to organize medical professionals against the proposed ferrochrome facility. He said since practising medicine in the Sault, he has had to diagnose many people with cancer. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

When Francis read the doctors’ letter, she immediately worried about the health effects, and her grandkids. “What are we leaving them?”

The idea of a ferrochrome plant has made her reflect more on the industry that’s already here.

“The air we breathe in this city is unreal,” she says. “The smell of eggs at times, the cloud over [the Sault] on a sunny day is unreal. Honest to God … I don’t know how they’re getting away with this.”

Algoma Steel’s free pass

Luna and I are up before dawn on a frigid Sunday morning to meet Selva Rasaiah, a former auditor of Algoma Steel who has agreed to show us the plant’s emissions from his favourite vantage point. Rasaiah takes photos of Algoma’s emissions on his own time and writes letters to the Ontario Ministry of Environment when he spots potential violations.

We drive to the base of the towering international bridge on the Canadian side. Rasaiah leads us on foot under the bridge, across train tracks and up a hill through deep snow drifts. At the top of the hill, we see plumes of smoke glowing against the dark sky. The only sounds are a low hum from the steel plant, a truck beeping in the distance and Rasaiah’s voice.

Rasaiah is a talker, especially about environmental regulations. He explains that the clouds we’re seeing are mostly a mix of water vapour and carbon dioxide. Some emissions are from industrial plants owned by other companies: Praxair, an industrial gas company, and Tenaris, steel pipe and tube manufacturer. But the majority of the visible emissions are from the steel plant, Rasaiah says.

Selva Rasaiah describes what can be monitored by observing the visible emissions emanating from the Algoma Steel plant. Rasaiah formerly worked as an emissions auditor inside the plant. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The environment ministry says it sets “science-based” air quality standards to protect human health, but recognizes that companies can’t always meet those requirements. So it grants exemptions — called “site specific standards” — on the condition that emissions improve over time.

As of July 1, 2016, the Ontario air standard for benzene was set at an annual average of 0.45 micrograms per cubic metre. But the ministry allowed Algoma to emit an annual average of 5.5 micrograms per cubic metre until the end of 2019. As of Jan. 1, Algoma Steel’s new limit is an annual average of 2.2 micrograms until June 2021. It’s not yet clear if the company will meet that limit.

The ministry says it monitors compliance with the site-specific standard by confirming that Algoma Steel is implementing an action plan designed to reduce emissions.

Algoma is required to observe and record visible emissions from its coke oven batteries and report them on an annual basis. If the company exceeds air standards, it must submit an updated action plan on how it will address the issue.

But Rasaiah questions the reliability of the company’s self-reporting.

In summer 2018, he worked for Pinchin Ltd., auditing Algoma’s emissions. He used something called Method 303 to check for visible emissions of benzene and benzo(a)pyrene.

When workers fill the ovens with coal, it’s called charging. While working for Pinchin, Rasaiah would look for yellowish-orange raw coking gas coming out when the ovens were charging and time it. This gas contains benzene and sulphur. Rasaiah would count the number of leaks, time them and tap the results into a tablet. The numbers are run through a formula to model the total amounts of benzene and benzo(a)pyrene. 

The Algoma Steel plant operates under “site specific standards” that allow the facility to release emissions greater than those recommended by the Ontario environment ministry. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Although he is no longer an auditor at the plant, Rasaiah continues to visually monitor emissions from the plant and documents them with photos and video. When a reportable event occurs that should trigger a report with the ministry, Rasaiah says he checks the government’s website. There are several recent occasions when emissions events should have been reported to the province, but were not, according to Rasaiah, who says he notifies the ministry every time he documents this happening.

The ministry says it received annual reports from Algoma Steel in 2017 and 2018 showing estimates of its benzene levels were below the site specific standard. Algoma Steel hasn’t handed in its 2019 benzene report yet.

The company also has to meet opacity limits — opacity is the degree to which an emission obstructs light. Algoma must meet a limit of no more than 20 per cent of light blocked over six minutes.

Companies must report discharges and spills to the ministry in a timely manner. Residents can also call the ministry’s Spills Action Centre if they see pollution. When the ministry receives a report, an environmental officer looks into it and decides how to respond. 

The ministry says it takes “swift and prompt actions” when companies break the rules and can fine or prosecute them.

In the last 10 years, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has prosecuted Algoma Steel and its predecessor Essar Steel Algoma on two occasions, leading to convictions and $200,000 in fines. Also in the last decade, the ministry has issued four environmental penalty orders with an additional $27,000 in fines, and 11 provincial officer’s orders requiring improvements to operations.

Rasaiah says air pollution from the steel plant is drifting across the river from Canada to the U.S. Fine particulate matter, also called PM 2.5, is tiny particles in the air so small that when inhaled, they can reach the lungs and lead to all kinds of health issues, including asthma. Long-term exposure can lead to lung cancer and heart disease. 

“It’s going to affect your lungs, no different than if you smoke,” he says. 

Rasaiah says Algoma Steel’s emissions drift across the St. Marys River into the U.S. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

An individual walks toward an entry point at Algoma Steel just after sunset. The facility operates day and night, every day of the year. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan installed an air quality monitor for PM 2.5 on the U.S. side of the river to monitor fumes from Algoma Steel.

“I feel that the American side is by far getting the worst pollutants, because of the direction of the wind,” says Robin Clark, an ecologist with the council. 

It’s tough to prove, though. The group removed the air quality monitor last year because PM 2.5 levels weren’t high enough to be of concern. But Clark believes the monitor was in the wrong location for the wind direction, leading to lower readings.

“We’re all in the same air shed, whether it’s Canada or the U.S. We all own this air that we’re breathing,” she says. “Except now a corporation is going to be taking it further.”

Noront hasn’t approached the ministry about the ferrochrome plant yet, so it’s not clear what specific limits or regulations the facility would have to meet.

Noront says they will run an environmentally responsible facility, but Rasaiah asks: if the ministry gives exemptions to Algoma Steel, will it go easy on the ferrochrome plant too?

Since leaving his position as an emissions auditor at Algoma Steel, Rasaiah regularly documents visible emissions at the facility from this hillside. He reports his findings to the environment ministry. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

First Nations opposition

Seven people attend a “petition party” on a Saturday in January in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. The storm outside may have kept people away, but Rasaiah is here, eager to chat about regulations.

Kathie Brosemer, environmental program manager for the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, is organizing events like this regularly to gather signatures opposing Noront’s facility. She lives in Canada but travels to the U.S. for work.

The Michigan-based Sault Tribe passed a resolution against the facility, stating that the tribe must protect the land, air and water, and that ferrochrome production has a track record of pollution.

A woman drops by with a yellow folder containing four pages of signatures, about 240 names, bringing the total to about 1,000.

Kathie Brosemer poses for a portrait at her home in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., where she regularly hosts petition parties against Noront’s proposed ferrochrome facility. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Sault Tribe is not the only Indigenous community opposing the ferrochrome plant.

In December, the Batchewana First Nation on the north side of the river came out against the project. In a statement, the chief and council said the decision did not come lightly, and it was their duty to protect the land and waterways. Chief Dean Sayers did not reply to a request for comment.

The chief and council reached the decision based on several key principles, including the Water Declaration of the First Nations in Ontario, which states that First Nations have laws and protocols to ensure clean water for all living things, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which says they have the legal right to own, use, develop and control their lands and resources.

Garden River Chief Andy Rickard was elected last September and the ferrochrome facility has been top of his agenda since then. He says many Garden River community members disapprove of the project. Noront has reached out to him to set up a meeting. He says his community will make a decision once the company answers their many questions.

Rickard says his community suffers from high rates of cancer, especially among young people. Too often he sees online fundraisers for cancer treatments.

Cancer survivors and patients gather at a home in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., on Jan., 19, 2020. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Sault has higher than average cancer rates and many locals fear Norot’s proposed ferrochrome facility will increase the risk of cancer in the region. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Residents have complained about a lack of public consultation surrounding Noront’s proposal. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The chief of another local community, the Missanabie Cree First Nation, declined to comment for this story.

Noront CEO Alan Coutts says the company had set up meetings with the chiefs and councils of the First Nations. Asked if any First Nations had consented to the project, Coutts says, “We have not asked for consent — it’s too early in the process. Once we have the design and test work complete, we will communicate the results and will allow people to make informed decisions based on factual information.”

Coutts says the company had not yet consulted with anyone on the Michigan side of the river. He says the company was currently scheduling meetings with “various interest groups, including in Michigan.”

“Consultation is a formal process that will begin when the design is finalized and the environmental assessment begins,” he says. 

Blindsided

Sault Ste. Marie Mayor Christian Provenzano says the city first began talks with Noront about the facility in November 2016. The company announced it was holding a formal competition, asking cities to compete against each other to be selected as the site for the ferrochrome facility. 

On May 10, 2017, Noront presented the idea in the Sault during a luncheon. Provenzano says this was a public event and listing for the meeting notes tickets were available for sale: $28 plus tax for Chamber of Commerce members to attend; $38 plus tax for non-members.

The mayor says in an email that there was “little time” between the date that Noront sent a request for information and the deadline for a proposal. He says he didn’t have enough information to host public consultations.

Usually if a company is selecting a site for a facility, it will do work to identify an appropriate site. In this case, Noront invited cities to do that legwork.

“There was so much interest in attracting the facility that we wanted any city that qualified to have a chance to attract the plant,” Coutts says.

A playground in the Bayview neighbourhood of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., falls within a few hundred meters of Algoma Steel. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

According to emails obtained through freedom of information laws, the mayor and city representatives made dinner reservations with the Noront team on Feb. 1, 2018, at Luma, a contemporary seafood restaurant in downtown Toronto, to present their submission. 

Coutts says he didn’t pay for dinner. The mayor says the city split the bill with the Sault Ste. Marie Economic Development Corporation.

As the city courted Noront, there were still no public consultations. Then on May 7, 2019, Noront and government officials announced the “good news.” The mayor said after a hard few years the Sault had been selected for the ferrochrome plant and was “open for business.” He said this was only the beginning of the process, and next steps would include environmental assessments and consultation.

Blowback was immediate.

Brosemer, environmental program manager for the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, gathers petitions against the ferrochrome plant. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Clean North office where a petition party was held and organized by Brosemer, on Jan., 18, 2020. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Volunteers gather to collect signatures against the ferrochrome plant. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The next day, Batchewana First Nation issued a press release saying the announcement “came as a shock” and they had not consented. Chief Dean Sayers says he had met with the Sault Ste. Marie Economic Development Corporation in January 2018, but says “they didn’t go far beyond a simple introduction to the project.” Sayers says the nation sent a letter to the city outlining the steps forward to secure consent, but never heard back.

On its website, the city says its bid to Noront “included letters of support from Batchewana First Nation, Garden River First Nation and Missanabie Cree First Nation.”

Asked about the letter of support, Garden River Chief Andy Rickard says, “I think that’s a false interpretation of that.” He says the previous chief had provided a letter, but it did not grant consent.

“It wasn’t in support of the project, it was just in support of the application going in,” Rickard says.

It’s hard to know exactly what the bid contained because the city won’t make it public. The Narwhal and Environmental Health News filed a freedom of information request asking for it, but the city refused to release it. We have appealed the decision.

Aman Sangar is studying to becoming a welder in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Sangar lives in a home with several other students adjacent to the Algoma Steel plant. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

On Oct. 3, after sustained backlash, the mayor held a news conference. “Everything that has happened to date has happened within the full view of the public,” he said, adding that Noront doesn’t have permission to build the facility yet.

Provenzano says he understands criticism that the city didn’t engage enough with the public before submitting a bid, but adds there will be an environmental assessment, permits and public consultation before the facility can be built.

That’s not entirely accurate.

According to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, private sector projects including ferrochrome production facilities or smelters “are not automatically subject to Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act.”

The environment minister could designate it for an environmental assessment, or the proponent can volunteer for one. The ministry says Noront has not yet volunteered for an environmental assessment.

“In three to five years, after the engineering, design, test work and economic analysis is completed, if we decide to progress, we would initiate a governmental assessment,” Coutts tells me in an email.

Once built, industrial plants stand for decades. In the case of the steel plant, as long as a century. They are the scaffolding on which people build their lives. Will the ferrochrome facility ever really be built? It’s not clear. But it has awoken a town to what they have in their backyards.

The snow crunches under our feet as Ruddell and I walk toward the old tannery site on the Michigan side of the river. Two snowmobiles zoom past. “This all should be blocked off, all of it, even the snowmobile trails,” she says.

Algoma Steel, visible from across the St. Marys River, in Michigan. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

Ruddell said she is frustrated that Americans living near the proposed ferrochrome facility don’t have the right to fight the plant being built, even though they could be negatively affected by emissions. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

I ask Ruddell how she feels about the ferrochrome plant. 

“Some people would look at it as, this area’s already been hit, who cares? But if that happens, there’s no fixing anything then. That’s dangerous. I’ve looked into these things enough that I know what can happen.”

She worries that Americans can’t stop the ferrochrome plant. “Especially being on this side, how much can we really fight against them in Canada?”

“We can do and say whatever to try to stop it, but whose ear do you gotta pull on? I don’t know. Does it worry me? Heck yeah.”

Update April 7, 2020 12:33 p.m. PST: This article was updated to note that in a 2008 worker compensation, a kidney and part of a bladder was valued at $3,300, according to Mike Da Prat, president of United Steelworkers Local 2251. Previously the story indicated the $3,300 figure referred to compensation for a kidney or a bladder last year. 

Like what you’re reading? Sign up for The Narwhal’s weekly newsletter.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The results of a UBC study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Environmental Health in January 2020 suggest air pollution and living close to major roads is connected to a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease and dementia.

“We wanted to understand who develops these neurologic diseases and who does not,” Dr. Michael Brauer, professor in the University of British Columbia’s School of Population and Public Health and one of the study’s authors, told The Narwhal. 

“We wanted to know, if you live close to a major road, were you more likely to develop a disease than somebody who did not live close to a major road?”

The study analyzed data for 678,000 individuals ages 45 to 84 living in Metro Vancouver between 1994 and 2003. As well as administrative health data, each individual’s proximity to a major road, exposure to air pollution, exposure to traffic noise and proximity to green space was analyzed based on their postal codes.

Why consider the population’s neurological health?

This study focused on four neurological disorders: Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), Alzheimer’s disease and non-Alzheimer’s dementia. All of them are progressive diseases, meaning symptoms will gradually worsen over time.

Neurological diseases, including the four studied, are one of the leading causes of disability in Canada. None of the four disorders have a known cure and cost Canada’s health care system billions.

Brauer said that little is known about why some individuals develop these disorders and others don’t — particularly beyond aging, a known risk factor. Understanding the role the environment and urban design play could result in preventative measures being taken, and in turn, savings in health spending.

A connection to fine particulate matter

Medical data like physician codes, hospitalization data, medical billing data and prescription drug information was analyzed to determine if individuals who did not have neurological disorders between 1994 and 1998 then developed Parkinson’s disease, MS, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia in the years between 1999 and 2003.

Results showed that living less than 50 metres from a major road or less than 150 metres from a highway was associated with a 14 per cent increased risk for non-Alzheimer’s dementia and a seven per cent increased risk for Parkinson’s disease. 

Brauer notes that the number of Alzheimer’s disease and MS cases was low, meaning a relationship between road proximity, air pollution and these neurologic disorders can’t be made.

The hypothesis is that the increased risk for cognitive disorders based on road proximity has to do, at least in part, with a connection to fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide in the air.

A tree in Vancouver’s 617-acre Lynn Canyon Park. The UBC study found proximity to green spaces has protected effects for neurological health. Photo: Andy Li

‘Green spaces protect you against its effects’

However, the results found proximity to green spaces — street trees and parks — has protective effects, even if there is still air pollution and if the individual lived near a major road.

“Even though people were [neurologically] affected by air pollution, they were less affected if where they lived was greener,” Brauer said.  

Brauer said the findings show we should be thinking about incorporating greenery and parks into residential neighbourhoods, as well as relying less on motor vehicles and separating motor vehicles from where people are spending time, to benefit Canadians’ neurological health.

However, more research still needs to be done. Next, Brauer and his team plan to expand this study beyond Metro Vancouver.

“[Analyzing] a larger population will also allow us to look at more combinations of noise, air pollution, road proximity and green space,” Brauer said. “And perhaps [we can] untangle a little bit more about what’s going on with regard to the aging population’s neurological health.” 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Ulrike Meyer remembers when she first visited Canada as a medical student in 1985 and thought it strange how chemical regulations were so lax compared to those in her home country.

“You could buy bleach by the gallons to clean your house,” she recalls. “In Germany you needed a licence to get a small quantity of bleach — and you had to justify what you were using it for.”

After starting her residency training in Vancouver, Meyer interned in rural locations across the province while calling an off-the-grid organic farm 125 kilometres north of Dawson Creek home.

A full-service rural physician, Meyer works full-tilt in obstetrics, operating-room assists, nursing-home care and outpatient clinics in a region beset by the most dramatic increase in fracking operations anywhere in the country.

Meyer is tracking the province’s plans to develop a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry with a watchful eye, knowing the vast majority of the gas extracted in B.C. is done so through fracking.

And while plans to further develop gas plays in northeastern B.C. are celebrated at the government level as ensuring an economic windfall, Meyer says a wave of health impacts are sweeping the region without adequate monitoring and research.

Health impacts of fracking not comprehensively studied

A recent independent scientific review of fracking commissioned by the B.C. government seems to shore up Meyer’s concerns.

The report concluded that not only is our understanding and monitoring of its effects on surface and groundwater sorely lacking, but the province is also profoundly ignorant of fracking’s possible public health risks. (The independent scientific review did not include an examination of the public health implications of fracking.)

Fracking in northeast B.C. began in earnest in the early 2000s, but the reality of the industry’s impact hit Meyer afresh this past summer.

“We got a notification letter about a multi-well pad extension on the hill in our neighbourhood on June 15, 2018. [My husband] hid it at first because he thought I would be upset.”

As Meyer began to do initial research on the health effects of fracking she was distressed to learn that neighbourhood air-quality monitoring around operations was minimal or non-existent. No biometric data was collected from the local population before or after the multi-well pad was put in.

Regulations appeared weak.

Meyer and her neighbour Karen Leven, an environmental scientist, immediately began to canvass their neighbourhood to see how others viewed the proposed extension. Despite generating 50 letters of complaint and concern, the community’s opposition fell on deaf ears.

“They would only need one neighbour … in the consultation zone who would sell out, so they would handpick someone who worked for oil and gas, offer him a new road and he would say yes even if there were others in close proximity with sheep and young kids,” Meyer says.

She adds that companies find sympathetic individuals within a community and play neighbours off one another.

“Most neighbourhoods gave up after a while.”

Fracking ills

With Meyer’s new awareness of the growing industry footprint came clues in her practice that all was not well with her patients.

The fracking boom has seemingly had measurable impacts on the health of the community. With the wells on the landscape and burgeoning man camps came higher rates of sex-trade work, sexually transmitted infections and drug use as transient young men from across the country arrived.

And though large amounts of money flowed through town, Meyer said she’s seen poverty among locals increase.

A gas plant in northeast B.C. Photo: supplied

Meyer outside the Dawson Creek hospital. Photo: Sabrina May Photography

Before the fracking boom, Meyer’s neighbour rented a one-bedroom apartment for $420 per month. After the boom and some homeowner renovations, that same apartment now fetches over $1,000.

“Many people work minimum wage so they can’t even cover rent and food. There’s a big discrepancy between having and not having.”

In Meyer’s world, however, fracking’s dangers don’t just come from these more visible impacts that weigh on her patients. Less visible changes are taking place as well.

Data on disease patterns non-existent

Last July during a staff meeting at Dawson Creek Hospital, radiologist Charles Larsen told Meyer and a group of colleagues he had just diagnosed his tenth case of glioblastoma — the lethal brain cancer that killed Tragically Hip frontman Gord Downie.

“Counting back in retrospect, 10 is not an official number but that’s what I recall seeing in my office,” Larsen said in an interview.

Larsen, who had practised for three decades in Cape Town had only ever come across four cases of glioblastoma. Now, after seven years in Dawson Creek, he’d encountered 10.

“After a couple of years I realized I was seeing more than I’ve ever seen before … and I’d previously been dealing with a larger population.”

With a catchment area of 30,000 patients, and a typical glioblastoma incidence of two to three per 100,000, the total number of cases in Dawson Creek should have been about half that, at five.

Larsen said on a night flight into the area he counted 10 active flares, which burn off excess or unwanted gas at oil and gas well sites.

“These are all petrochemical fumes being released into the atmosphere. You just wonder how it’s controlled.”

There are no studies on glioblastoma in northeast B.C., but research suggests an environmental link between benzene and brain cancer and other kinds of cancer.

And then there was the story of Sukh Sarkaria, an internist who diagnosed ten cases of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the two short years he’d worked in Dawson Creek.

This rare disease progressively scars the lungs, beginning with an insidious dry cough and breathlessness, followed by death within an average of four years of diagnosis. Risk factors include smoking, radiation and inhaled pollutant exposure. Sarkaria said the number of cases of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Dawson Creek stood out to him.

Sarkaria now practises in Surrey, B.C., far from fracking country, where, after several months, he has yet to see a case of the same disease.

A new natural gas well pad with numerous wells is readied for fracking near Farmington, B.C., a 20-minute drive from Dawson Creek. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Meyer had her own experiences too.

“I have some patients whose symptoms I can’t explain,” she says.

“There’s one, an older farmer in his mid 70s, who likes to dance. His farm was surrounded by a multi-well pad and open waste-water tanks. Shortly after the flares went up he developed episodes where he would suddenly pass out.”

On one occasion this patient slumped over in his chair while playing cards with friends.

“We adjusted his medications, did a Holter [heart monitor test], CT angiogram, brain scans and referred him to a specialist in Edmonton, but couldn’t come up with anything. When they were done with all the fracking activity and sealed the sites two years ago, his symptoms disappeared. He’s had no other episodes since.”

For Meyer, other stories came from even closer to home.

Her neighbour, who used to live in another part of town, developed severe nosebleeds after flaring began at nearby fracking operations.

“At night when he was sleeping he would almost choke on the blood. His wife would wake him up because of the sound,” she says.

Selling everything, including a prized renovated farm and his business, the neighbour and his wife moved to Arizona.

“It took three months to stop. He came back three years later, re-bought his business and moved to my neighbourhood, where there’s no flaring.”

His wife told Meyer she’s never bought so many pillows.

Meyer wanted to know whether or not these disease patterns were significant.

Not getting far on her own, she consulted the librarian at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. After combing through eight different databases, from Statistics Canada to Medline to Google, the librarian had no luck either, Meyer says.

Eventually Dr. Jong Kim, the medical health officer for the province’s northeast, managed to get her one relevant study: a report on cancer rates in the Peace River region as compared to the rest of Northern B.C. from 2005-2014.

The study found cancer rates in the Peace River region were mostly consistent with cancer rates across Northern B.C. but Meyer was bothered to find the study did not include statistics on brain cancer.

The research also identified an elevated risk of leukemia — which evidence has linked to benzene exposure, a cancer-causing chemical found in high concentrations at well sites and in fracking wastewater — but the researcher concluded this increase was not statistically significant compared to the rest of Northern B.C. Given the small population numbers involved in the analysis, however, it would be difficult to tease out anything but dramatic trends.

Meyer would like to see an analysis that compares her local cancer rates to the rest of B.C., a more varied and robust population size.

Fracking risks to pregnancies

Dr. Élyse Caron-Beaudoin, a toxicologist and post-doctoral researcher at the Université de Montréal Public Health Research Institute, said nosebleeds are a well-documented side effect of increased levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the air, which are released during fracking activity.

But not enough research is being done in Canada on the health impacts of fracking, Caron-Beaudoin added in a phone interview.

“In the U.S. there’s an increasing number of studies — especially epidemiological studies that look at proximity to fracking wells and effects … What’s coming up in those studies are respiratory issues [like] asthma. There are also people that reported different symptoms like headaches and nosebleeds.”

Caron-Beaudoin said while these studies are more likely to demonstrate association rather than direct cause and effect, “they can verify that if you are closer to fracking activity you are more likely to see such symptoms or more likely to be hospitalized.”

In a 2018 pilot study, Caron-Beaudoin found elevated levels of benzene metabolites in the urine of 29 pregnant women in the Peace River region. The study found a byproduct of benzene was 3.5 times higher in women in the area than the national average. That figure jumped up to six times higher in Indigenous women.

“Regulatory agencies should be interested in doing more research [on pregnant women] especially because data in the U.S. points towards an association between being close to fracking wells and some serious health issues: low birth weights, preterm birth, congenital heart defects,” Caron-Beaudoin said.

“If industry is here to stay, fair enough, [but] let’s make sure [they] protect the general population and workers because they’re the ones most exposed to those chemicals.”

For her part, Meyer takes extra time to counsel women about the possible implications of fracking on their pregnancies.

“I tell them not to work anymore, especially if they’re exposed to gas on a regular basis. Many times they’re not aware how dangerous it could be to the developing fetus. Some do quit their jobs.”

In the end, what is perhaps most telling is the restlessness of physicians in her town.

She hears that many of the younger doctors are considering moving south, mostly due to their concerns about the quality of local schools and health effects of the fracking industry. But their ties to the community (not to mention a rural medicine retention bonus to the tune of over $20,000 per year) so far have prevented a mass exodus — much like the lure of the riches of the oil and gas industry for other residents of Dawson Creek.

‘There’s collateral damage’

Meyer is on call for a local nursing home the day we speak. From time to time she has to pause to take a call from a nurse before resuming her thoughts about fracking and long-term accountability.

“It is not acceptable that an industry makes billions of dollars and doesn’t return anything to the community,” she says.

Diminished air quality, water quality and health are all collateral damage from industry, Meyer said, also pointing to the fact that companies facing bankruptcy leave the province holding the bill for well site cleanup and remediation.

“It’s a high price to pay for the public. I can’t make the industry go away, but they should have to comply with strong regulations.”

B.C. left holding massive bill for hundreds of orphan gas wells as frack companies go belly-up

Meyer also replies decisively when asked about the changes she would like to see as a physician.

“We should be able to test the canaries in the coal mines who might be getting symptoms from exposure to toxins. We should have a fund provided by the oil and gas industry to do toxicology studies on them. I think we should use a top-down approach: test the humans and animals, and the environment — because we breathe the air, we drink the water and are part of the web of life.”

From March 31 to April 4 2019, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment is presenting a multi-city speaker series featuring residents of the Peace River region called “Voices from the Sacrifice Zone: Fracking in B.C.’s North” across Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland. Click here for dates and registration information.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

B.C.’s scientific inquiry into fracking won’t address risks to public health, the government quietly assured the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) nearly six weeks before government publicly announced the inquiry on Thursday.

B.C. also assured CAPP the inquiry would not address industry’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, according to documents obtained by DeSmog Canada.

“You have the preeminent industry association in the country given six weeks advance notice not only about the inquiry itself but a clear indication that key things are simply not going to be addressed,” Ben Parfitt, an investigative journalist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, told DeSmog Canada.

”I’m deeply troubled by that.”

In November the CCPA, along with 16 partner organizations, called on the B.C. government to launch a broad-reaching public inquiry into all aspects of the fracking industry, after Parfitt revealed several companies had built unlicensed dams to hold water for frack operations.

The groups renewed that call in December after a leaked report showed the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission had kept information about potentially hundreds of leaking oil and gas wells hidden for four years.

“I am extremely worried and all the groups that signed on to a call for an inquiry are extremely concerned about what we see here,” Parfitt said.

Nearly six weeks before B.C. announced its review of the fracking process, CAPP was notified the inquiry would focus only on water usage and induced earthquakes from fracking operations.

Government also made CAPP aware the province would not conduct a full public inquiry as had been requested by civil society groups, that the panel would consist of three academics and would conduct its work in April and May.

None of the 17 organizations that made the call for a public inquiry into fracking were notified of government’s intentions to launch a scientific panel.

The B.C. Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources did not answer questions about the nature of its consultation with CAPP or whether the industry association made specific recommendations regarding the province’s scientific inquiry. CAPP did not respond to a request for comment.

Significant harms to human health associated with fracking

The announcement of B.C.’s scientific inquiry this week coincides with the release in the U.S. of the most authoritative study of fracking’s threats to human health ever published.

The compendium, a 266-page report which draws from nearly 1,300 peer-reviewed studies, reports and investigations, was released by the Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Concerned Health Professionals of New York.

The report found “no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health” and puts B.C.’s avoidance of health impacts in its scientific inquiry conspicuously on display according to Barbara Gottlieb, director for environment and health at Physicians for Social Responsibility and one of the co-authors of the study.

“I’m so glad to hear there is going to be a government scientific review of fracking,” Gottlieb told DeSmog Canada. “I’m struck there are no health voices on the panel.”

The body of information addressing the threats fracking poses to human health is enormous, Gottlieb said, adding the bulk of the research has been conducted in the last five years.

“The most important thing to note is that we can say with certainty fracking causes harm to human health.”

Recent research has demonstrated a real statistical correlation between those living close to fracking sites and an increase in hospitalization for numerous causes, including increased asthma, harm to fetuses and premature birth which is the leading cause of premature death in infants in the U.S., Gottlieb and her co-authors found.

“For a long time the information was largely anecdotal, largely at the level of symptoms, so we’d see people living near fracking sites had headaches or sudden and severe nosebleeds.”

The research now shows a strong connection between serious harm and proximity to fracking operations, Gottlieb said, noting the occupational risk to those working for the oil and gas industry.

“The extraction sites are dangerous,” she said.

Amy Lubik, member of the Public Health Association of B.C., one of the groups that called on government to launch a public inquiry into fracking, said much of the research into the impacts of fracking on human health has been done in the U.S.

“There aren’t a lot of studies in B.C. around the impacts on health,” Lubik told DeSmog Canada. “It’s one of the reasons why we were hoping the government was going to examine fracking in a public inquiry.”

Lubik, who is an environmental health scientist with the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, said many other jurisdictions that have placed a ban or moratorium on fracking have done so precisely because of risks to health.

“I think we need to do a hell of a lot more research,” she said. “We talk about the chemical issue a lot with the different groups in public health. What about the people that are living and working in these industries?”

Lubik added when it comes to public health, emissions associated with the industry are also of significant concern.

“Climate change is the biggest public health risk of our time. If we aren’t meeting our Paris targets, we will put a lot of people’s health at risk.”

Emissions impact of fracking overlooked

Scientist John Werring with the David Suzuki Foundation, also a signatory of the call for a broad public inquiry into fracking, has spent the last several years measuring the impacts of leaking methane from oil and gas infrastructure in B.C.

Werring’s research found fugitive methane — an extremely potent greenhouse gas — is escaping at much higher rates than previously estimated by government or industry. A report published in collaboration between the David Suzuki Foundation and St. Xavier University recommended B.C. require industry to provide regular monitoring and reporting of fugitive emissions.

Werring said he’s disappointed B.C.’s scientific review of fracking was designed to exclude looking at those fugitive emissions.

“I think unfortunately that this is a very, very, very narrowly focused scientific review,” Werring told DeSmog Canada.

While there are environmental hazards associated with the fracking process itself, Werring said much of the impacts of fracking happen above ground.

“When we’re talking, for example, about the issue of fugitive emissions, they contain potentially toxic components that have adverse impacts on human health. These are things like benzene, toluene and hydrogen sulfide gas.”

“There is nothing here in government’s scientific review that they are going to look at the human health impacts. Nothing,” Werring said.

Gottlieb said tracking methane is important for tracking the larger movement of contaminants away from fracking sites and into communities. She added there is no known safe threshold for exposure to benzene, which causes cancer.

“The fracking site is where the gas is extracted but then the methane is carried to processing stations and then carried often hundreds of miles to power stations or increasingly in the U.S. there is a push to liquify natural gas,” she said.

Those pipelines carry with them some of the dangerous substances that come out of the ground with the methane, including particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and often radioactive material, Gottlieb said.

“These dangerous substance are not only causing sickness and hospitalization and so on where this is extracted but this whole pipeline and infrastructure system carries this toxic material with them and into communities hundreds of miles away.”

“We’re all stakeholders in regards to fracking.”

Stronger review needed

Gottlieb said in her home state of Maryland, where there is a current ban on fracking, Physicians for Social Responsibility pushed for health voices to be included in reviews of the industry’s impacts there.*

She said B.C. may be well counselled to embed a health professional in their review.

Lubik said there is still time for B.C. to alter the scope of its inquiry.

“I think there’s definitely still an opportunity — they haven’t even started yet.”

Parfitt said beyond assessing the health and emission impacts of the fracking industry in B.C., a meaningful inquiry would address the efficacy of the regulatory environment in the province.

“This review isn’t going to come anywhere remotely close to what our organization and other organizations felt was critical to be addressed by a much broader, fulsome public inquiry,” Parfitt said.

There have been too many examples of the regulator failing to protect the public’s interest, Parfitt said.

“We believe very strongly they’re not going to wrestle this beast to the ground if they’re not willing to look at how this industry is regulated.”

Fracking Inquiry Correspondence March 2018 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

*Update: Wednesday March 21, 2018 6:45 p.m. PST. This article has been updated to reflect the fact that the state of Maryland has a ban on fracking and not a moratorium as previously stated.*

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Doctors, nurses and health care professionals from across Canada are urging the federal government to phase out coal-fired power plants within the next decade because of coal’s harmful effects on human health and its contribution to climate change.

The unusual activism from groups such as the Canadian Lung Association, the Asthma Society of Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, led by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, comes on the heels of growing global recognition of the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power generation.

“We urge the government of Canada to phase out coal-fired power plants by 2025 as a critical and immediate action toward achieving Canada’s emissions commitments and as a means to reap significant health benefits for Canadians,” reads a submission from 15 health organizations, representing more than 300,000 health professionals.

Despite the troubling impacts coals has on health and the environment, Canada is taking its time in weaning itself off the use of traditional coal-fired power plants to produce electricity, but the country could set an example to the rest of the world, suggests the letter to a Ministry of Environment and Climate Change federal-provincial working group. 

“With an ambitious commitment to coal phase-out in hand, Canada can enter this year’s COP22 international climate negotiations in Marrakesh, Morocco (to be held in November) as a leader on this issue. Canada’s action to eliminate coal-fired power would be a significant global victory,” the letter says.

Coal-fired power plants are responsible for up to 43 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions globally and their closure is seen as one of the fastest ways to dramatically reduce emissions. The majority of plants are in China, but coal consumption is starting to drop as the country restricts construction of new coal plants and closes those with the biggest pollution problems.

Coal generated about 10.6 per cent of Canada’s electricity in 2014 — mainly is Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — and is responsible for about 8.4 per cent of Canada’s emissions of greenhouse gases and for 72 per cent of greenhouse gases emitted from the electricity sector.

Ontario and Alberta have already taken steps to phase out coal plants, with Ontario closing its six plants between 2003 and 2014 — and seeing health benefits estimated at $300 million a year — while Alberta is starting to phase out coal-fired plants in 2018 with a target of having them all closed by 2030.*

The letter from the health professionals says “Each year, air pollution from coal-fired plants in Alberta, is giving rise to approximately 100 premature deaths from long-term exposures, 700 visits to Alberta’s emergency departments, 80 hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular ailments from short-term exposures and 4,800 asthma symptom days…The health impacts have been valued at approximately $300 million per year or $3-billion when extrapolated over a 10-year period.”

Canada’s doctors & nurses urge critical & immediate action on #coal powerplants https://t.co/OuNS3L4GAk #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/qvbHprrP6q

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 20, 2016

In addition to problems directly related to pollution from coal plants, there are equally alarming health consequences expected from climate change in Canada as people will have to deal with higher levels of smog and pollen as temperatures increase, a wider range for insect and tick-borne diseases such as West Nile Virus and Lyme disease, more avalanches, mudslides, thunderstorms, droughts, hailstorms and tornadoes, contaminated drinking water and food-borne illnesses, says the letter, which describes climate change as the ultimate health equity and social justice issue.

“Countries with poor health infrastructure and low incomes that are already struggling to feed their residents are the hardest hit by climate change, while countries with the highest standards of living, such as Canada, are among the largest emitters of the greenhouse gases that are contributing to climate change,” it says.

Terrie Hendrickson, coordinator of the B.C. Health Coalition — one of the organizations which signed the letter — said all the health professionals felt there was so much evidence showing the health consequences of using coal that consensus was reached.

“I think doctors are starting to get involved with climate change from a health care perspective,” she said.

“We are already starting to see the outcomes of climate change and we are seeing how it’s going to affect the most vulnerable in society.”

Although B.C. does not have any coal-fired power plants, together with Alberta, it is responsible for mining and exporting more than 80 per cent of the 60-million tonnes of coal produced in Canada each year and coal makes up almost half the shipments through the Port of Vancouver.

A B.C. government website says coal is a mainstay of the province and represents more than half of the total mineral production revenues.

“Coal is B.C.’s largest single export commodity,” the site states.

That means B.C. bears some responsibility for the health and climate problems from coal use world wide, says the non-profit Dogwood Initiative in a recent report that criticizes the B.C government for not including emissions from coal mined in the province in its emissions targets.

“The total global pollution from B.C. coal in 2008 — a total of 61.4 million tonnes — almost doubles B.C.’s reported contribution to global warming,” the report states. “While all the attention is focused on green energy, B.C is quietly becoming a major global player in perhaps the dirtiest, most polluting industry on the plant — coal.”

“Dialogue needs to begin about the relationship between being a climate leader and exporting polluting resources like coal.”

*Change Notice: Sept. 27, 2016: This article originally incorrectly stated that the health benefits of Ontario's coal phase-out were valued at $3 billion a  year. The actual figure is $300 million per year, or $3 billion extrapolated over a 10-year period.

Image: Coal Power Plant, Battle River, Alberta. Photo: Benjamin Thibault, Pembina Institute

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It’s a sentence that feels weird to write: by 2030, Alberta will have shuttered the 18 coal-fired power plants that currently generate around 55 per cent of the province’s electricity, with two-thirds of that power replaced by renewable sources.

The stunning move was announced as part of Alberta’s climate change policy framework that was released on Sunday. According to the government, only 12 of the 18 coal-fired power stations would have been phased out by 2030 under the previous arrangement.

The immediate health benefits of such a move are tremendous.

Kim Perrotta, executive director at Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), says that coal accounts annually for an estimated 107 premature deaths, 80 hospital visits and almost 5,000 asthma-related sick days in Alberta, costing the province around $300 million.

Prior to the government’s announcement, over 40 organizations — including the Alberta Medical Association and Asthma Society of Canada — made a joint call for an accelerated phase-out on health grounds.

“We see the air quality benefits that are fairly immediate that would be felt by the people in Alberta,” Perrotta says. “But we also want to reaffirm that as an organization run by physicians, we actually believe climate change is the public health challenge of the century. So we think this is a huge win for public health in terms of the the immediate benefit for Albertans but also for the long-term benefits for public health around the globe.”

Coal is responsible for 17 per cent of Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions and six per cent of emissions nationwide.

While a faster ramp-down of coal would have been possible, that likely would have lead to a great proportion of power generation coming from natural gas, says Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada.

“So I think it’s a good approach that’s going to lead to a significant amount of renewable electricity generation in the province and a diverse supply of electricity,” Woynillowicz says.

Under former regulations, TransAlta’s Keephills 3 could have stayed open until 2061, which is when the federal government’s flaccid half-century phase-out plan would have neutered the plant.

Coal-related Job Losses and Disputed Compensation

To be sure, not everyone’s happy about the decision. The mayors and reeves of 30 Albertan municipalities signed an open letter to Premier Rachel Notley prior to the announcement noting the phase-out will likely come at the cost of jobs and tax revenue.

The mayor of Hanna — the same town which exported Nickelback — reiterated that argument on Tuesday, suggesting the loss of 200 jobs coming with the closure of the local coal mine and power station will be “devastating.”

Woynillowicz acknowledges such concerns, noting that institutions like NAIT, SAIT, the University of Lethbridge and Medicine Hat College are already offering training in the renewable energy sector.

“That’s going to create all kinds of new investments and job opportunities in the province,” he says. “The government is committed to ensuring that for workers and communities that transition occurs as smoothly as possible. We’ve got the capacity to train the workforce we need so I think there’s definitely opportunity there.”

Read more about Alberta's coal consumption: Alberta's First NDP Climate Victory May Have Nothing to Do With the Oilsands and Everything to Do With Coal

Some coal power plant owners have argued they will deserve some compensation from the province due to the forced phase-out. However, a recent report authored by Tom Marr-Laing and Ben Thibault for the Pembina Institute contended that a great majority of power purchase agreements were struck with coal operators before the deregulation of the electricity market in 2001 and that the “Effective Life of the Unit” — guaranteeing a “fair return on capital” — would be completed by 2030 for all but two plants.

As a result, Marr-Laing and Thibault concluded in the report that 16 of the 18 stations can be retired without the need for compensation. Marr-Laing says in an interview that many of the older plants will receive between a six and 10 per cent return on equity, which constitutes a “heck of a return.” However, compensation may be required in the cases of Capital Power’s Genesee 3 (built in 2005) and Keephills 3 (built in 2011), even though a phase-out has been discussed for upward of 20 years.

“We actually don’t owe them anything, technically, but it may behoove us in Alberta to say some form of compensation may be appropriate for those two units rather than simply saying ‘tough, you lose a billion bucks,’ Marr-Laing says in an interview. “It sends a useful signal to the new investors we want to come to the table to invest in renewable energy and gas that there’s an example of having being treated fairly, at least.”

Controlling Prices During the Transition

The potential rise in electricity costs is yet another factor that’s received plenty of attention. Plenty have pointed to Ontario — which has experienced spiking rates in recent years — as an example of why the transition won’t work.

But Woynillowicz says the Ontario comparison is unjustified considering the need for the province to upgrade its grid infrastructure and refurbish nuclear plants. He says that Alberta may be entering the renewable energy market at the exact right moment, given plummeting prices for technology and the presence of increased competition between different developers. Alberta’s new energy efficiency program could also help reduce costs for electricity and heating, counterbalancing any price increase.

But Woynillowicz also stresses it’ll be very important for the government to keep Albertans up-to-date on what’s happening with the revamp of the system.

“I think we need to avoid a situation, to the extent we do see increases [in cost], that isn’t just attributed to renewables,” he says. “The reality is it’s a relatively aging power system that’s going to need upgrading regardless. The government and Alberta Electricity System Operator and renewable electricity developers are going to have to ensure they are very open and transparent in terms of how the electricity system in Alberta is evolving and being willing to discuss that. They can’t just put the policy in place and just stop talking about it.”

At this point, Alberta is by far the largest consumer of coal in the country, although Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are also high consumers of the dirty fuel.

The next steps on the national and global stage will be determined in Paris. But plenty is happening on the provincial stages, too: Manitoba is potentially rolling out its cap-and-trade program, Ontario has announced a comprehensive climate change strategy and Saskatchewan has committed to drawing half its electricity from renewables by 2030.

“We’re seeing other jurisdictions wanting to step up and also deliver leadership on this,” Woynillowicz concludes. “Everybody is beginning to finally recognize there’s opportunity in this: that it’s going to be a better economic strategy than lagging behind, trying to fight something that has so much momentum.”

Image: Battle River Coal Plant via Pembina Institute 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

The idea of a right to a healthy environment is getting traction at Canada’s highest political levels. Federal Opposition MP Linda Duncan recently introduced “An Act to Establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights” in Parliament. If it’s passed, our federal government will have a legal duty to protect Canadians’ right to live in a healthy environment.

I’m travelling across Canada with the David Suzuki Foundation’s Blue Dot Tour to encourage people to work for recognition of such a right — locally, regionally and nationally. At the local level, the idea of recognizing citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment is already taking hold. Richmond and Vancouver, B.C., The Pas, Manitoba, and the Montreal borough of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie all recently passed municipal declarations recognizing this basic right.

Our ultimate goal is to have the right to a healthy environment recognized in the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a federal environmental bill of rights is a logical precursor. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself was preceded by a federal statute, the Bill of Rights, enacted under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government in 1960.

This isn’t a partisan issue. It appeals to people across the political spectrum and has broad support among Canadians. An earlier attempt to pass a Canadian environmental bill of rights (also led by Linda Duncan) gained the support of MPs from various parties before its passage through Parliament was interrupted by the 2011 federal election. In France, conservative leader Jacques Chirac championed the idea of environmental rights during his presidency. After more than 70,000 French citizens attended public hearings, the Charter for the Environment was enacted in 2005 with support from all political parties.

I’ve seen so many positive changes in our legal systems and social safety net in my 78 years — including adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. My family was incarcerated in the B.C. Interior during the Second World War, just for being of Japanese descent, even though we were born and raised in Canada. Like other people of colour, my parents didn’t have the right to vote until 1948. First Nations people on reserves couldn’t vote until 1960. And women weren’t even considered “persons” under Canadian law until 1918, when they were given voting rights. Homosexuality was a crime punishable by prison until 1969! I’m convinced that legal recognition for environmental rights will be the next big change.

Progress is possible when enough people recognize its necessity and come together to make it happen. Protecting our country and planet, our health and the future of our children and grandchildren is absolutely necessary. We can’t live and be well without clean air and water, nutritious food and the numerous services that diverse and vibrant natural environments provide.

Even in Canada, where our spectacular nature and abundant water are sources of pride, we can no longer take these necessities for granted. More than 1,000 drinking-water advisories are in effect in Canada at any time, many of them in First Nations communities. More than half of us live in areas where air quality reaches dangerous levels of toxicity. And from Grassy Narrows and Sarnia’s Chemical Valley in Ontario to Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, people are being poisoned because industrial interests and profits are prioritized over their right to live healthy lives.

It’s not about hindering industry; it’s about ensuring that companies operating in Canada, as well as our governments, maintain the highest standards and that human health and well-being are always the priority. Evidence shows strong environmental protection can benefit the economy by spurring innovation and competitiveness and reducing health-care costs. This is about giving all Canadians greater say in the democratic process and looking out for the long-term prosperity of Canada.

More than half the world’s nations already recognize environmental rights. It’s time for Canada to live up to its values and join this growing global movement.

There’s no date yet for a vote on Bill C-634, but its introduction has started a conversation among politicians in Ottawa. Let’s hope people from across the political spectrum will recognize the importance of ensuring that all Canadians have the right to a healthy environment.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

As an elder, I’ve watched Canada and the world change in many ways, for better and worse. Thanks in part to cheap energy and technological growth, the human population has more than tripled, from 2.2 billion in 1936 when I was born to about seven billion today. As a boy, I could drink from streams and lakes without worrying about getting sick. My father took me fishing for halibut, sturgeon and salmon on the Vancouver waterfront. Pretty much all food was organic.

Although my parents were born and raised in Canada, our family was incarcerated in the B.C. Interior during the Second World War. Like other people of colour, my parents didn’t have the right to vote until 1948. First Nations people living on reserves didn’t have voting rights until 1960. And, until 1969, homosexuality was a criminal offence, often leading to prison (now same-sex couples in Canada can marry). Without a health-care system, my parents had to worry far more about illness than Canadians today.

Although we’ve degraded our natural environment since my childhood, we’ve made great strides in human rights and social programs. But those advances didn’t come without struggle. It’s important to protect and improve the hard-won rights and social safety net that make Canada one of the best countries for citizens and visitors alike — but it’s crucial to protect the natural systems that make it all possible.

We’re too often asked to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy, between health care and environmental protection. But these are false choices. Long-term prosperity and good health absolutely depend on conserving and using our resources wisely and on ensuring our air is pure enough to breathe, our water clean enough to drink and our food nutritious and plentiful enough to keep us healthy and alive. Protecting the environment is good for human and economic health!

Consider water. We can’t survive without it. Most Canadians take our abundant fresh water for granted. But according to the recent Ecojustice report Waterproof: Standards, “Canada’s drinking water standards continue to lag behind international benchmarks and are at risk of falling even farther behind.” At any time, more than 1,000 drinking water advisories are in effect across the country, many in First Nations communities. Canada doesn’t even have a national water policy. Nor do we have legally binding national air quality standards.

People died in Walkerton, Ontario, because of E. coli in the water. Grassy Narrows residents are being poisoned by waterborne mercury. Toxins in the air and water are affecting people’s health in Sarnia’s Chemical Valley, as are a deadly mix of oilsands chemicals in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta.

This is clearly unacceptable in prosperous, resource-rich Canada. So how do we ensure that all Canadians have the right to enjoy clean air and water and healthy food? We could follow the lead of more than half the world’s nations and enshrine the right to a healthy environment in our Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That’s one of the goals of the Blue Dot Tour I’ve embarked on with the David Suzuki Foundation and friends, supporters and, I hope, you. It’s a testament to the importance of this tour and the movement it intends to spark that so many musicians, artists and thinkers have volunteered their time to get the word out, including Shane Koyczan, Neil Young, Tanya Tagaq, Feist, Blue Rodeo members, Margaret Atwood, Hey Ocean, Bruce Cockburn, Joel Plaskett, Roy Henry Vickers, Whitehorse, Barenaked Ladies, Danny Michel, Kinnie Starr, Stephen Lewis, Ovide Mercredi and many more.

The events in 20 cities across Canada promise to be fun and entertaining, but there’s a serious purpose: To start a national conversation and movement to make sure we all look after this land that gives us so much.

History shows that informed individuals who come together to build a groundswell of opinion and pressure are a powerful force for positive change. We hope this tour will inspire Canadians to take action in their communities, that those communities will in turn inspire provinces to get on board and that ultimately, our right to a healthy environment will be recognized at the national level.

It’s a long road, but together, we can get there. Are you in?

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This article originally appeared on MikeDeSouza.com.

A new study from the University of Manitoba will soon challenge industry and government claims downplaying environmental health impacts of oilsands development, said the chief of a First Nations community Friday.

“When that report comes out, it’s going to blow the socks off industry and government,” Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation told native and non-native supporters gathered at a campsite for an outdoor weekend retreat near major oilsands projects. “We went ahead and did our own independent studies and we found some very stunning results.”

First Nations communities have alleged that toxic pollution from oilsands operators is contaminating their air, water and food. Representatives from industry and the federal and provincial governments have pointed to research suggesting the toxins aren’t yet at unsafe levels.

Environment Canada has sometimes declined requests from journalists asking for interviews with federal scientists doing this research.

But the anticipated study described by Chief Adam would follow a provincial government report, released in March by Alberta’s chief medical officer, James Talbot. The provincial report confirmed warnings about high rates of a rare form of cancer from a local physician, Dr. John O’Connor, who had been criticized for publicly drawing attention to the cases in the community of Fort Chipewyan.

The provincial government confirmed levels of bile duct, cervical and lung cancer in the community, between 1992 and 2011, that were several times higher than expected. But the report also found that the overall number of cancer cases was 81, and therefore not significantly higher than the expected total of 79 cases.

Bile duct cancer can be linked to a number of factors such as family history or exposure to some toxins.

Talbot said in March that there wasn’t “strong evidence for an association between any of these cancers and environmental exposure.”

Talbot also confirmed at the time that there were never any comprehensive studies in the potentially affected communities.

O’Connor said that nurses and doctors in the community may see things differently.

“The proof is up there if anyone chooses to look,” O’Connor said in an interview after participating in a panel discussion with Adam and George Poitras, the CEO and a former chief of the Mikisew Cree indigenous First Nation.

Several hundred people from Canada and the United States travelled to northern Alberta for the outdoor weekend retreat – described as a “Healing Walk” around oilsands operations for First Nations communities affected by the industrial development.

This is the fifth and final edition of the walk, a 20 km trek scheduled on Saturday. The event’s website said organizers would shift their focus in subsequent years away from open-pit oilsands mining to raising awareness about impacts of other forms of oilsands extraction that use steam injected deep underground.

Chief Adam said in an interview that the University of Manitoba study would likely be released within a month with findings that would raise questions about the credibility of the Alberta Health report on cancer in Fort Chipewyan.

The provincial report prompted newspaper articles in the Globe and Mail and the National Post, among other media reports, that defended the oilsands industry – an economic engine in Canada that historically relied on generous government incentives and subsidies, but which also generates jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues – suggesting that the Alberta government review proved that O’Connor’s warnings were “falling apart.”

O’Connor warnings drew official complaints from government officials, provoking a professional review that would eventually clear him.

“I didn’t expect the reaction that I got. I didn’t expect to be attacked so viciously, when I chose to do my job,” he said.

“My way of reconciling it and dealing with it, is if they (media personalities) think I’m doing wrong, I know I’m right, because if they agreed with me, I’d want to take a long hot shower and really examine what I’m doing.”

O’Connor said this is why he has no regrets. But he wonders whether government officials feel the same way.

“I have a clear conscience,” he said. “I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again and will do it again if a similar situation arises. I would hate to be in their position. They have to sleep at night and they have to answer their grandchildren: Why did you do this? And all you’ve got to do is look in the communities and you know there’s no doubt about what’s going on.”

Image Credit: Chief Allan Adam by Kris Krug via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

On Friday, January 11, while Kim Henry was marching in Ottawa as part of the Idle No More Global Day of Action, the air surrounding her home was turning sour. A leak at the nearby Shell Corunna Refinery filled the Aamjiwnaang First Nation community with the smell of rotten eggs, a typical indicator of the presence of hydrogen sulfide.

Henry is the academic principal of the kindergarten at Aamjiwnaang Binoojiinyag Kino Maagewgamgoons, a daycare that sits in a green crescent not far from the St. Clair River, which separates Canada from Michigan. This area, stretching south from Sarnia toward Lake Eerie has come to be called the Chemical Valley for its 62 nearby large industrial facilities (on both the Canadian and American side of the boarder). Those plants released 131 million kilograms of pollutants in 2005 alone, according to a report from Ontario’s Ecojustice, a charitable organization that advocates for environmental human rights. 

At Henry’s daycare, daily alarm tests from the three nearby petrochemical plants serve as a reminder that life in the Chemical Valley means being aware from a very young age that disaster could strike any moment.

“It can get stressful for the kids sometimes,” she says. “Even though some of them are really little, they know that if they're not eating lunch then that's not a normal alarm.”

On January 11, there was no alarm, although the daycare’s staff and neighbours detected the strange scent around 11:40 am.

Ada Lockridge, a community activist who helped to found the Aamjiwnaang Environment Committee, says her neighbour described the smell as a “number 8 or number 9 on the stink scale.” The odour, “hit you in the face, made you fall down. It was a strong odour of gas, like you were working in the gas station.”

Corunna’s plant manager, Michele Harradence, told the Sarnia Observer that the leak was discovered around 1:45 pm. Daycare workers reported the smell to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment before 2 pm but official word that there was a shelter-in-place – an order to go indoors and shut off all air intake – did not reach the daycare until 3:30 pm, after the shelter-in-place had been called off.

Henry says that residents throughout the neighbourhood were already suffering from headaches. “Later on that night some people had taken their children to the emergency because of headaches and a little bit of nauseousness. Some people were saying that their skin was really irritated and they had almost hive-like skin irritation.”

Furnaces in the daycare had to be shut off over the weekend, and when they were turned back on Monday, the air that lingered in the ducts was still pungent with aftereffects of the leak.

At a heated community meeting on Tuesday, January 15, Shell announced that the problem had involved sour water containing mercaptan – a class of organic chemicals used in refining oil – and benzene from their flare system. They said that the leak was contained to the plant. Ontario Ministry of the Environment spokesperson Kate Jordan later confirmed the presence of hydrogen sulfide, which would account for the rotten egg smell.

Jordan says that officials performed an air quality check after the incident and found that pollutant levels “didn't show any areas of concern.” They expect a full plain language report from Shell within the next week, which the company has promised to share with the daycare.

To Henry and her colleagues, the delay between the leak and the official announcement put the children of the community at unacceptable risk. “They have a right to justice and protection and we feel like that was violated.”

Inspired by her experience in Ottawa, Henry and daycare supervisor Muriel Joseph-Plain decided they would hold a rally of their own. The teachers in the kindergarten prepared their students with lessons that drew on Doctor Seuss’ the Lorax and traditional First Nations teachings about the sanctity of air, water and land. On Wednesday, January 16, about 100 members of the community marched from the daycare carrying signs that called for greater respect of children’s right to clean air.

This is not the first time the people of Aamjiwnaang have stood up for themselves. In 2008, they formed a bucket brigade to test their own air quality and discovered high levels of chloromethane, benzene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene and isoprene.

In 2010, with the help of Ecojustice, Lockridge and her former neighbour Ron Plain filed a challenge alleging that the Ontario Ministry of Environment’s ongoing approval of pollution in Sarnia violates their basic human rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Even if the community is unable to identify the specific contaminants from the leak, they may still have a case against Shell, according to Dr Elaine MacDonald, an environmental engineer who works with Ecojustice. Extremely strong odours such as those created by mercaptan and hydrogen sulfide are also considered a contaminant under Ontario law.

“We're hoping that this type of thing won't go unnoticed and that there'll be some enforcement action,” says MacDonald. “Even if this was an accident, it doesn't matter. There needs to be something to make sure that this doesn't happen again.”

MacDonald said that First Nations and poor communities are often treated as sacrifices to the petrochemical industry and this is undoubtedly the case for the Aamjiwnaang community.

“They've been there for hundreds and hundreds of years and these plants all popped up around their reserve,” she says. “The proximity of the plant to the reserve is quite stunning. They share property lines, basically. You'll have a refinery property line that backs on the very property of homes and community facilities like community schools, more so than you'll see in most places.”

Back at Aamjiwnaang Binoojiinyag Kino Maagewgamgoons, Shell has agreed to clean the daycare’s ventilation system and playground in light of the leak. But Henry believes that even this small concession would not have happened if the community hadn’t gathered together to demand a response.

“We need to have a better line of communication,” she says. “They need to contact us right away if there’s a shelter-in-place or any kind of emergency. They need to let us know sooner.”

Image Credit: From Ecojustice's Exposing Canada's Chemical Valley: An Investigation of Cumulative Air Pollution Emissions in the Sarnia, Ontario and Shell Canada.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.