Transport Canada documents express concerns over Forever Chemicals as early as 1984

Transport Canada was concerned about Forever Chemical, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as far back as the 1980s, files obtained through an access-to-information request confirm.

There are thousands of chemicals in the PFAS family, and some have been linked to liver and prostate cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension, fatty liver disease and affecting lipid function, which is linked to type 2 diabetes.

For decades, Transport Canada – along with the Department of National Defense (DND) and the National Research Council of Canada – has conducted firefighting training exercises with aqueous film-forming foam containing PFAS at airports across Canada.

The foams were seen as an effective way to fight jet fuel fires, but their use at sites across the country forever contaminated groundwater with the chemicals.

Alex Templeton, partner at the McInnes Cooper law firm in St. John’s, is leading a proposed class action lawsuit On the contamination of drinking water wells located near several airports in Newfoundland. To proceed, the class action must be certified by a judge.

The lead plaintiffs in the class action are Eddie and Susan Scheer, “homeowners who one day had Transport Canada knock on their door and ask if they would consent to having a well tested,” Templeton told CBC News.

It turned out that their wells “significantly exceeded” new drinking water guidelines set by Health Canada, which say the total of several types of PFAS must be more than 30 nanograms per litre.

Transport Canada managed firefighting training exercises at airports near the Newfoundland and Labrador towns of Torbay and Logie Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, where the contaminated wells were located.

Through access to information requests, Templeton obtained several Transport Canada documents, including a 1984 report that determined that the toxicity of waste materials at firefighter training sites could be extremely high.

Surfactants, which was the popular term at the time, now known as PFAS, were identified as one of the most significant sources of pollution in that stream.

“So when firefighting training drills were taking place at airports across Canada, they were concerned about the environmental impacts of the waste generated from these drills,” Templeton said.

“And Transport Canada had evidence as early as 1984 that although these firefighter training exercises could be useful, they could also result in effluents that were very high in toxicity.”

A 1984 report, “Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment of Fire Training Area Effluents and Transport Canada Facilities,” concluded that typical “effluents may be toxic at concentrations up to 88 ppm, and surfactant and fuel residues may persist.”

A 1990 report revealed that Transport Canada was concerned at the time about the risk of groundwater contamination from runoff in those firefighting training areas.

In 1986, Transport Canada discontinued firefighter training exercises at the airport in Timmins, Ontario after a report by an engineering firm discovered large amounts of groundwater contamination at that location.

Documents confirm that Transport Canada created standards in 1979 to prevent waste at those sites through proper grading and barriers such as soil or gravel.

But the documents also raised concerns about those standards because they were out of date (by 1990) and did not take into account how winter conditions with snow and ice can affect runoff. The 1990 report also found that 30 percent of sites surveyed across Canada did not even meet the 1979 standards.

“The current AK standard for construction and design issues of FTAs ​​(firefighter training areas) in 1979 is outdated and does not address today’s environmental concerns,” the report said.

The standards set in 1979 also did not address the treatment or disposal of waste from firefighting foam.

In an email to CBC News, Transport Canada spokesperson Flavio Nino said fire-fighting activities at airports were conducted in accordance with policies and environmental practices in place at the time.

“As Transport Canada became aware of the potential environmental impacts associated with these activities, training was consolidated at larger airports across the country, reducing the number of training sites over time,” the email said.

“PFAS were not known as contaminants at the time.”

Templeton responded by email that Transport Canada’s response contradicts the concerns raised in the 1984 and 1990 reports he obtained through access to information.

Concerns in the North Bay

The reports have raised new concerns in North Bay, which is dealing with a $120 million cleanup effort to remediate a site at the airport and remove PFAS from drinking water.

Firefighting foam seeped into groundwater and reached Lees Creek, which flows into Trout Lake, the source of North Bay’s municipal drinking water.

The lake currently contains about 58 nanograms of PFAS per liter of water. While this amount is equivalent to only a few drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool, it exceeds Health Canada’s drinking water guidelines of 30 nanograms per litre.

“Why wasn’t this followed? Why wasn’t there better communication between Transport Canada and National Defence?”-Lisa VanderMeer, North Bay resident

Ottawa-based law firm Mann Lawyers filed a petition Proposed class-action lawsuit On PFAS contamination in the North Bay.

The proposed class action alleges that DND knew in 2011 that PFAS levels in groundwater near the airport exceeded Health Canada’s drinking water guidelines at the time.

North Bay Parry Sound Health District says DND notified it about groundwater monitoring at the airport in 2016.

The following year, the city posted an advisory urging people not to consume fish from Lees Creek.

CBC News asked the DND whether Transport Canada shared information from the 1984 and 1990 reports at that time, but did not receive a response.

Lisa VanderMeer, a North Bay resident and former employee of Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment who responded to the cleanup and spill of contaminated sites, said she was surprised by the findings of the documents.

“They recognized it as a serious concern as early as 1984,” he said.

“And why wasn’t it followed? Why wasn’t there better communication between Transport Canada and national defence?”