Environmental Management in an Effluent Society (1967)

Hon. M. D. Dymond, M.D., C.M., LL.D.,
Minister, Ontario Department of Health

Introduction

Right at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should ask the indulgence of our guests for the title I have chosen for this evening’s speech — Environmental Management in an Effluent Society. Being a Scotsman, it did not occur to me that anyone could be less than vitally interested in any topic associated with the reduction or elimination of waste — a hateful word to any Scot! But, as I sat here this evening, enjoying an excellent dinner — which, by the way, is not an unusual event in our affluent society — I realize that Ecclesiastes had a point when he said — “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun. ” I concede that one would not ordinarily select the hour immediately after a large dinner as the most appropriate time to talk of effluents and the need for controlling their disposal. But while we dined, I had an opportunity to observe how well we all cleaned up our plates. Believe me, not all of this audience is Scotch! We are leaving a problem of waste disposal in the wake of this dinner ! They need to be spoken to!

I want to extend to all of you a most cordial welcome on behalf of the Prime Minister and all my colleagues in Government to this gathering. Because of the importance which we as a government attach to this subject, all of you have been particularly selected for invitation to participate in the proceedings. I know all of you have with us much concern for the problem of controlling wastes. I realize many of you have attended similar or comparable conferences and I can tell you if facilities had been available a great many more would have been invited to attend this one.

THIS CONFERENCE IS THE FIRST to be convened by the Government of Ontario for the purpose of obtaining an over-all view of the problems confronting us in the management of our wastes — wastes which, in the final analysis, have to be disposed of into our air, our water, or our soil; wastes which, in their disposal by one means or another, have already caused problems of pollution and which threaten greater pollution unless the means is found for their control.

SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS confronting us will neither be easy nor cheap. Indeed, in this Province particularly, with its expanding economy, its growing population and its increasingly higher standard of living, the problem of waste disposal is growing at such a rate that for the foreseeable future, we shall be running hard just to keep up. To get ahead, to improve the situation, will require even greater effort from each and every one of us.

DURING THIS MORNING’S PLENARY SESSION an attempt was made to outline in broad terms the major problem areas in the three fields of air, water and soil pollution. In the concurrent sessions this afternoon, the government’s programs for control of these three classes of pollution were described with particular reference to your special field of interest, that is, agricultural, industrial or municipal. The sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday will explore in greater depth special problems with which we are confronted, and the possible means for their solution. I feel my own contribution to your discussions should include brief reference to the health implications associated with our waste disposal problem, and outline the Provincial Government’s position with respect to the control of pollution.

Water Management

It will be of interest to this group particularly to know that Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, writing some 300 years B. C. , recognized the influence of the environment on health. He wrote: “whosoever wishes to investigate medicine properly should consider the seasons of the year, the winds and the waters in relation to health and disease”. During the intervening centuries, man has made tremendous strides in elucidating the causes of disease. The “miasma” theory — the transmission of diseases such as cholera and malaria by unhealthy air — was largely discarded following the discovery of bacteria, and the subsequent identification of the causal organism of a host of infectious diseases. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind this audience of the progress that has been made during the past century in the science of microbiology and in the development and application of epidemiology. The astounding reduction in waterborne diseases is largely the result of their application to sanitary science. Today we have many alternatives to choose from in treating water for bacterial contamination: softening, taste and odor control, and perhaps most recently, artificial fluoridation, but the most important treatment is, and will continue to be, the treatment of water to prevent the transmission of disease. There are still important areas to be explored in this field. In addition to the problem of ensuring a safe supply of drinking water, has in recent years been added that of preventing pollution of our streams and rivers and lakes.

ALTHOUGH ONTARIO IS VERY fortunate in the supply of water within its boundaries, it has not been able to avoid many of the problems associated with water use. To solve the present problems and to counteract the occurrence of future ones, proper water management must be considered of paramount importance if we are to ensure equitable and maximum use for all purposes. The uses of water are manifold — the more important being domestic, municipal and industrial water supplies, power and navigation, recreation and fishing, agriculture and the dilution of waste effluents. In a proper water management program, each use of water is recognized and the maximum use of water for such purposes maintained.

IN THE EARLY 1950 ‘s, due to the fact that more water was needed in some areas and available supplies were becoming polluted, the Government of Ontario realized that some new financial arrangement and stimulus of water supply and sewage disposal work was needed. The end result was the passing of the Ontario Water Resources Commission Act in 1957, and the formation of the
Ontario Water Resources Commission. This placed the responsibility for all phases of water management in Ontario, including pollution control, under a single agency.

THE INSPECTION AND supervision of municipal sewage treatment were the responsibility of this newly-formed Commission and it was also given the authority to enter into agreement with municipalities for the financing, design, construction and operation of sewage treatment projects.

This meant, of course, that municipalities could now avail themselves of more favorable financing and expert supervision of construction and operation of both water and sewage projects.

Although this arrangement did provide a good deal of stimulus to this construction of needed facilities, many of the municipalities could not assume this added debt. For this reason, the authority of the O. W. R. C. was extended in 1964 to allow the construction of wholly provincial owned water projects and to wholesale water to municipalities at cost. In August of 1965, this provincial ownership concept was extended to include sewage works as well — both on an area and an individual municipality basis — whereby sewage might be accepted and treated, again with the rate being based on usage. One of the important advantages associated with this type of project is that it overcomes the problem of compromises being made by municipalities either with respect to the degree of treatment or the type of construction undertaken.

A municipality now has three choices by which it may undertake to construct necessary works — on its own; as a standard O. W.R. C. project based on O. W. R. C. -municipal agreement; as new provincial projects. Some of you have probably heard earlier today, that, to date, some 393 projects serving 207 municipalities have been developed or are under development on the basis of an O. W. R. C.-municipal agreement, at a cost of $153 million. Of this total, 225 projects were for sewage treatment facilities at an estimated cost of $118-1/2 million. The programs of the Commission have largely been responsible for twice as many sewage treatment plants being constructed in the past ten years than in the previous thirty years. Of the 997 municipalities in Ontario with sanitary sewers, less than 2. 5% are discharging raw sewage without treatment, and this percentage is diminishing rapidly. The majority of these have tabled active programs for sewage works before the Commission and negotiations are continuing with the remainder to provide waste treatment. Where such works are needed, sewer extensions will not be approved and similarly, where pollution problems exist within a municipality because of the lack of adequate treatment facilities, recommendations are made to the Department of Municipal Affairs against further subdivision development until a satisfactory program has been worked out.

No account of the pollution control problem would be complete without a reference to industrial pollution. Because of the progress which has been made in the control of pollution from municipal sources, attention can now be focused upon pollution caused by industry. In the treatment of industrial wastes, problems of a somewhat different nature exist because of the volume and complexity of the effluents which must be treated. A tougher attitude is being adopted toward offending industries with the realization that this problem must be remedied as well. A firm step forward was taken by the Commission in industrial waste control by the sending of a directive to the pulp and paper industry in December, 1964, this in turn being followed by a directive to other industries in the spring of 1965. This directive set out the effluent objectives desired and the timetable in which these objectives should be achieved.

Where the Commission is not satisfied with the progress which is being made or the co-operation which is being received, injunctions and prosecutions follow. The terms of the O.W.R. C. Act apply with the same force to industries as they do to municipalities, and in some instances, in fulfilling its responsibility for the protection of the Province’s water resources, the Commission has no other alternative than to have recourse to the courts. In all fairness, it should be added, however, that industry on the whole has been co-operating in a commendable manner. Since the O.W.R.C. was formed, industries in Ontario have spent over $120 million on waste treatment. This is exclusive of those that are connected to municipal systems, where in some instances, surcharges are paid to the municipality for the treatment of their industrial wastes. This has resulted in a marked improvement in the quality of the Province’s water sources.

In any discussion on pollution control and its effects, the Great Lakes must be mentioned. As far as this country is concerned, the Great Lakes Basin contains the largest concentration of people anywhere in Canada, and the predictions of population growth indicate that this concentration is going to increase greatly. Hence, the Government attaches great importance to the quality of the water in these Great Lakes.

As a result of a reference from the Governments of Canada and the United States to the International Joint Commission in 1965, the Government of Ontario through the Ontario Water Resources Commission, is participating in a program of pollution investigation in the Great Lakes in co-operation with departments of the Federal Government. This initial program of Great Lakes studies, ending in 1968, will terminate with a comprehensive report to the International Joint Commission. It is anticipated that after 1968, the survey will become a continuing surveillance effort designed to provide for more intensive pollution control measures and parallel improvements in the water quality of the Great Lakes.

Since the start of this program, vessels operated by the O. W. R. C. have covered monitoring stations on the Lower Great Lakes and the connecting waterways from the St. Mary’s River to the St. Lawrence River. For many years, the O. W.R. C. has been developing a water quality monitoring system for the inland lakes and rivers of the Province of Ontario. Thus, levels of pollution in these waters are being determined and compared with the water quality objectives. From the results of this program, it is possible to determine the sources of pollution and the degree to which corrective
action is successful.

With the predicted future population in this Province and the increased use and re-use of its waters which will take place, we must raise our standards for degree of treatment and qualities of both municipal and industrial effluent. In connection with this, the Commission announced last June a change in “policy guidelines” with respect to water quality objectives. Through extensive surveys of individual watercourses, the assimilation or self-purification capacity of those watercourses is determined which indicates the amount of wastewater treatment necessary before it is discharged to the receiving stream. In other words, this is a more realistic approach to waste treatment, keyed into the use that is being made of the receiving waters. It means, further, that treatment units can now be specifically designed to meet the needs of these waters. In some areas, of course, such as that of the Great Lakes, this may well mean higher degrees of treatment than have been required in the past.

Of concern to us is not only the volumes of improperly or untreated wastes being discharged to these waters — although an active program is now under way to diminish the volume of these wastes — but, also, the fact that tremendous volumes of nutrients are discharged in these wastes, resulting in the over-fertilization of these waters. Continuous research is being carried out on treatment methods with the view to removing these nutrients more effectively. Methods in use in other countries are being evaluated and advice sought from those in charge of research programs in order to keep abreast of the latest developments in all these fields.

There is also the question of pesticides and herbicides about which relatively little is known insofar as their effects in water and the build-up in the flesh of fish. We do know something, however, about the build-up of DDT in the flesh of fish — especially in Lake Erie — and some of the side effects that this is believed to have had. There is no indication of this having had any effect on humans, however. Nevertheless, it is mentioned only to point up the concern which is felt over the increased use of many new chemicals today before their long term effects are known. The use of pesticides is increasing year by year and studies have been conducted to determine the most effective and nonhazardous rates of application of these chemicals to water. The laboratory and research work of the various departments concerned with these pesticides is being co-ordinated. A permit system is in operation whereby the O. W. R, C. in co-operation with the Department of Lands and Forests, controls the application of these chemicals to water so that all the ramifications of this addition are allowed for.

Over the past few years, a pollution control program has been developed in Ontario which is sound, is gaining momentum, and is designed to clean up what pollution still exists.

Waste Management

Linked in some of its aspects to the conservation of our water is the need for control of our own solid wastes. If all sources of solid wastes — domestic, industrial and agricultural — are considered, it has been estimated that the rate of production is 8 lbs. per person per day, or 1-1/2 tons per person per year, giving a total annual production for the province of about 9,000,000 tons. This volume is increasing by about 4 per cent per year (2% for capita increase, 2% for population increase) so that by 1985 we shall be faced with the problem of disposing of double this amount of refuse.

The health implications which arise from lack of proper refuse disposal practices need no elaboration here. You are all aware that uncontrolled garbage dumps serve as a breeding place for flies , rats and other pests which provide potential reservoirs for a number of diseases.

The means of control for all of these pests lies in denying them access to putrescible material. This may be done by means of aerobic composting, incineration, or sanitary landfill. Daily compaction of refuse in a sanitary landfill operation including six inches of compacted soil will prevent both emergence of flies which may be hatched in the refuse and penetration by rodents, thus resulting in an operation which is free from health hazard.

Protection against pollution of water is more difficult to ensure due to the greater number of variables. The most obvious factors involve the chemical and physical characteristics of the local soil and the distance to surface and ground water. There is evidence to indicate that a high degree of bacterial purification will occur for any material leaching through about ten feet of active soil. The stabilization of inorganic salts is much more variable and some may travel considerable distances and, in fact, may only be dissipated through dilution.

In recent years, the trend toward increasingly larger operations for livestock and poultry production have posed a new problem in the large volumes of fecal wastes they produce. Practical and economic means for handling this sewage are still in the developmental stage.

Recognizing the growing need for the regulation of refuse disposal, the Public Health Act was amended during the last sitting of the Legislature by the introduction of Section 95 a. This section provides authority to prohibit the establishment, alteration or enlargement of waste disposal systems or sites unless a certificate of approval has been issued by the Department, and to prohibit the deposit of waste on any land or in any building which is not approved as a waste disposal system or site. Householders disposing of waste on their own land are exempt from the provisions of the Bill unless such disposal creates a nuisance or a hazard to health.

Provision is made to permit waste disposal systems and sites which are in operation when the amendment comes into force to continue in operation under a certificate of approval or, where the standards set out in the regulations are not being complied with, under a provisional certificate of approval.

New waste disposal systems or sites may not be established or existing systems or sites altered or enlarged until notice of intent has been published in the local newspapers and the Department has issued a certificate of approval.

Applicants, other than municipalities, are to furnish a financial deposit to ensure that waste disposal systems or sites are satisfactorily maintained both during active operation and afterwards. Authority is given to order the removal of waste from any site that has not been approved, and to order the necessary action to be taken to bring a waste disposal system or site to a standard which conforms with the regulations.

A municipality may be required to initiate waste collection, or to establish or improve a waste disposal system, and it is not necessary for the council, in such circumstances, to obtain the assent of the electors.

The subsequent use of land which has been used for waste disposal will be subject to Departmental approval for a period of 25 years.

A waste management section has been established in the Environmental Health Branch of my Department to administer this Section 95 (a) of the Public Health Act. Regulations are now being drafted preparatory to the proclamation of this section of the Act. In the meantime, information is being assembled on existing installations and the necessary preliminary administrative arrangements are under way.

Air Pollution Control

I shall not attempt, in the limited time available this evening, to review in comprehensive fashion what is known to the present concerning the effects of air pollution on health. Much research has been done on the subject since 1948, when 20 people died and 6,000 became ill at Donora, Pennsylvania, and since the smog of December, 1952 in London, England, when nearly 4,000 more deaths occurred than would have been expected under normal atmospheric conditions. Let me summarize what is known in the following statements:

1. Acute episodes of high pollution have, on occasions, been associated with increased rates of illness and increases in mortality, especially from cardio-respiratory disease, during the episoded and in the days immediately following.
2. The majority of persons affected in these episodes were the elderly and those with pre-existing disease, particularly cardiorespiratory conditions.
3. The precise composition of the atmospheres during these acute episodes is unknown, since the investigations were made after the events.
4. In other studies, increases in mortality and morbidity have been shown to be closely correlated with increased levels of suspended particulates, and to a lesser extent, with sulphur dioxide.
5. The levels of individual contaminants found even during periods of severe pollution are well below those regarded as toxic for healthy humans.
6. It is not known whether long-term exposure to atmospheric pollution causes chronic respiratory disease.

Much of the information summarized above is derived from studies of human populations exposed to pollutants in urban atmospheres. It should be pointed out that the findings in these studies were related either to relatively brief exposures to high levels of pollution or to more prolonged periods of exposure in cities having rather persistently high levels of pollution.

It is the objective of the Provincial Air Pollution Control Service, by setting emission standards and establishing a program for their enforcement, to ensure that pollution levels shall remain below those which are believed, as the result of acute episoded or through prolonged exposure, to be injurious to health. It must be remembered that individuals vary in their response to most substances to which they are exposed. In any population there are susceptible or hyper-sensitive persons, some of whom will be affected by particular pollutants even in minute quantities. Just as in the case of sufferers from hay fever, for such individuals complete avoidance may be the only effective means of prevention of discomfort or even respiratory difficulty, and for some of these persons living in any urban atmosphere may present problems.

What further application has a knowledge of the health effects of air pollution to measures for its control? As our knowledge increases, it should be possible to establish realistic limits, or Air Quality Criteria, for the levels of the various pollutants which will be permitted in the ambient air. For example, restrictions on high sulphur fuels may be required, on a permanent basis, or during periods of inversion.

Secondly, knowledge respecting levels of air pollution and their potential for affecting health will undoubtedly assume increasing importance in future in such matters as city planning, the location of power plants, municipal incinerators and industrial operations, the development of nuclear power generating stations, and the continued use of internal combustion engines, including automobiles.

Thirdly, the application of future standards of air pollution may well be on a regional basis , the establishment of regional standards deriving from our knowledge of local population density, topography, meteorology, the concentration of sources of pollution in the area, and our knowledge of the potential hazard to health which emissions to the atmosphere could create.

I would like to return for a moment to the matter of Air Quality Criteria. Last Spring the U. S, Public Health Service published a document entitled “Air Quality Criteria for Sulphur Oxides” in which it was suggested, from a review of the literature, that exposure to a concentration of sulphur dioxide above 0. 015 parts per million parts of air, if continued for a year or more, would result in increased morbidity from certain respiratory diseases. The figure of 0. 015 p. p. m. , has subsequently been widely quoted as the “safe limit” for sulphur dioxide. A critical appraisal of the references on which the document is based indicates that this conclusion is unjustified. For example, one of the references used as evidence that levels of 0. 015 p. p. m. of sulphur dioxide caused an increase in hospital admissions concerned a study done in Los Angeles in 1961. In this study levels of other pollutants were also found to correlate well with hospital admissions. Los Angeles has a unique air pollution problem, in that the major pollutant capable of causing lung irritation is not sulphur dioxide but ozone and other oxidants. Not only is ozone more irritant than sulphur dioxide (the industrial exposure limit recommended is 0. 1 p. p. m. for ozone and 5 p.p. m. for sulphur dioxide), but ozone is present in Los Angeles air at approximately 30 times the concentration of sulphur dioxide. Under the circumstances, the evidence that 0. 015 p.p. m. of sulphur dioxide is harmful is far from acceptable. In fact, the “Air Quality Criteria for Sulphur Oxides” document itself warns

“… these effects do not necessarily, or in fact actually, derive solely from the presence of sulphur oxides in the atmosphere . . . the effects of one atmosphere polluted with oxides of sulphur may be quite different from that of another atmosphere polluted with oxides of sulphur. “

I expect that Dr. Lawther of the Air Pollution Research Unit, Medical Research Council of Great Britain may have more to say on this subject on Wednesday.

This is not to say that air quality criteria should not be developed. I only introduce a word of caution, that such criteria should be based on properly evaluated research. There are many variables whose effect must be considered, for example, the concentrations of the different pollutants present, their effect in combination as compared to their individual effects, the duration of exposure, the frequency with which adverse atmospheric conditions occur, the prevalence in the community of pre-existing cardio-respiratory disease, and the effects of other forms of pollution of the air we breathe, namely cigarette smoking and occupational exposure. In addition, in the development of air quality criteria sufficient flexibility should be incorporated that they may be made applicable on a local or a regional basis. For these reasons it is not possible at the present time to establish air quality criteria which are meaningful.

All of you who attended today’s sessions will have realized that, with the passage during the last sitting of the Legislature of the Air Pollution Control Act and Section 95 (a) of the Public Health Act, the Province now has the legislative authority to control pollution of our air, water and soil. The means for implementing this control exists in specific agencies or departments of the government. The Ontario Water Resources Commission has, in its first ten years, already achieved results of which we may be proud. This is not to say that water pollution is licked. As I indicated earlier, in our expanding society we must run hard just to keep up.

But I have pointed out the major shifting of emphasis in the O. W. R. C. program to that of water management. The same concept, that of conservation and management, must apply to our resources of air and soil.

My Department has responsibility for developing and is developing, Air Pollution Control and Waste Disposal programs with all possible speed. But the wise management of our air, water and soil resources entails more than just the responsibilities of the Department of Health or the Water Resources Commission. Many areas of society, and many departments of government, are affected by, or are concerned with the use made of our environment. For this reason an Advisory Committee on Pollution Control was established by the Honourable the Prime Minister a little over a year ago. This Committee, composed of the Deputy Ministers of Agriculture and Food, Energy and Resources Management, Health, Lands & Forests and the General Manager of the Ontario Water Resources Commission, is responsible for coordinating the various activities of the Government and for ensuring the development of a comprehensive, unified program in the task of managing our environment. The Committee has, since its formation, been most active in instituting an orderly approach in a very complex field. It is proving a valuable weapon in the Government’s attack on a problem that concerns us all — Pollution. May I assure this audience that it is the Government’s intention to augment the attack on all fronts, and with the utmost vigor, so that this Province’s bountiful resources shall be restored and shall continue for the enjoyment of those who follow us.