The Alberta government-owned hazardous waste treatment facility was permitted by the same government to operate for many years without mercury monitoring equipment, even though such monitoring was a condition of obtaining the permit.

Swan Hills Treatment Centre is owned by Alberta Infrastructure and operated by a subcontractor, formerly the French multinational Suez until it merged with another French waste management giant, Veolia.

The facility, opened in 1987 and located 10 kilometres north-east of the town of Swan Hills, has a history of failures and explosions that have led to environmental contamination.

In January this year, the charity Ecojustice, on behalf of two clients, brought an application for an investigation under the Environmental Protection and Improvement Act.

In a response the following month explaining its conclusions, Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEPA) said no sanctions were warranted because Alberta Infrastructure and its contractor were in “frequent communication” with AEPA and “self-reported that continuous monitoring could not be conducted due to (equipment) not recording properly.”

The continuous monitoring equipment became operational in December 2023, almost three years after the January 1, 2021, compliance deadline.

“We believe that this was not a reasonable decision, that it is unacceptable that no mercury monitoring was carried out at a hazardous waste treatment plant for more than three years,” Ecojustice lawyer Susanne Calabrese said in an interview.

AEPA defended its handling of the situation, saying proactive communication from permittees about monitoring issues had been adequate.

“Many challenges”

The current operating permit for the facility was issued by AEPA in December 2019. It included deadlines for meeting certain requirements. Three of those requirements are central to Ecojustice’s complaint:

• Continuous monitoring of mercury emissions from January 1, 2021
• Submit your mercury emissions study by December 31, 2022.
• Achieving a specific mercury emissions target by January 1, 2023

According to AEPA, a mercury analyzer was installed in 2020. However, the device had multiple issues that prevented continuous mercury monitoring.

Ecojustice has obtained a number of documents, including reports and correspondence, through applications made under the Environmental Protection and Improvement Act or through the Environmental Appeals Board.

The documents show that in December 2022, Suez wrote to AEPA acknowledging it had encountered “numerous challenges” with the installation of a mercury analyzer that was “still not operational” nearly two years after the deadline to begin continuous mercury monitoring and 11 days before the deadline to submit a mercury emissions study.

The company requested an extension to complete the study until June 30, 2023. AEPA responded in late May 2023, granting an extension until September 30, 2023.

Request for an investigation

In January 2024, Ecojustice wrote to AEPA on behalf of two clients, Wendy Freeman and April Isadore, requesting an investigation into several specific misconducts related to mercury monitoring and reporting.

The following month, AEPA said in a letter that the investigation was complete and no sanctions would be imposed. The primary reason was the “due diligence” of Alberta Infrastructure and its contract operators, who “communicated frequently with (AEPA) to self-report and discuss ongoing monitoring issues.”

In its response to Ecojustice, AEPA confirmed that continuous monitoring equipment was not operational until December 2023, pointing to this fact to explain why “the parties could not verify that emissions were within (the permit) limits and monthly reporting could not be completed.”

Lack of monitoring is “very disturbing”

“If this has been identified as such a serious problem that we are supposed to be monitoring, the lack of monitoring is very concerning to me,” said Shira Joudan, an assistant professor of environmental analytical chemistry at the University of Alberta.

“It also means that any future studies will be much more labor-intensive. Taking field samples to make those measurements later … think about how much work goes into that compared to real-time monitoring that could prevent so many things. Both future work and future uncertainty.”

Health Canada describes mercury as a “global contaminant because it is toxic, does not break down in the environment and can accumulate in living organisms.” The department warns that people exposed to high levels of mercury “can experience health problems ranging from rashes to birth defects, and even death in cases of extreme poisoning.”

Officials respond

Ryan Fournier, a spokesperson for Rebecca Schulz, Alberta’s Minister of Environment and Protected Areas, defended AEPA’s handling of the situation.

In an emailed statement, Fournier said the permit only requires monitoring while the plant is operating and that the plant was closed for various reasons, such as maintenance or forest fires, for about 300 days between January 2021 and December 2023 (a total of more than 1,000 days during that period).

Fournier noted that in lieu of continuous monitoring, “a manual stack survey was conducted and the 2022 Annual Environmental Monitoring Report submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency showed that emissions from the incinerator stack were below approved mercury limits.”

A manual stack survey is a measurement of emissions from stationary sources. During the period under review, a number of manual stack surveys were conducted at the Swan Hills site. Suez’s letter to AEPA dated September 2021 shows that the 2021 survey results were 20 times higher than the required limit.

“The problem with picking certain points in time is that you don’t fully understand what’s going on,” Joudan said. “It could be that less mercury is being emitted that day, right? So we don’t make sense. And if you don’t see the full picture, you really can’t understand the impact of what’s being emitted.”

The 2022 air quality monitoring report prepared by Suez shows that mercury emission limits were also exceeded during the 2019 medical chimney test.

The report also noted other instances where the plant failed to meet permit conditions, including several days when mercury emissions exceeded mandatory limits, and reports were not submitted by required deadlines.

Veolia referred all questions to Alberta Infrastructure, the owner of the facility.

CBC News sent a number of questions to Alberta Infrastructure, including why it took so long to repair the monitoring equipment. CBC also requested a copy of a mercury emissions study completed earlier this year.

In response, a spokesman said only: “Veolia is the contracted operator of the facility. A requirement of their contract is to have a valid permit from (AEPA), which they have maintained throughout the life of the facility.”

Calabrese said it simply does not make sense for a global waste management company like Veolia to be unable to keep equipment in good working order for many years.

Expensive cleanup is expected

Swan Hills Treatment Centre has processed a variety of hazardous materials since it opened in 1987. However, it also has a chequered history of environmental contamination, including from ‘uncontrolled emissions’ such as furnace failures or explosions.

One such incident in 1996 released PCBs, dioxins and other toxic compounds. The government commissioned a health and risk assessment study that resulted in advisories on the consumption of wild game and fish. These warnings, although less restrictive today, are still in force, last updated in 2012.

The plant is scheduled to close after 2025, after which the process of remediating the contaminated site will begin at an estimated cost of $223 million.

In the meantime, Ecojustice wants to take action to prevent further contamination, both in this particular case and in the future.

“I would like to see Alberta Environment do a better job of enforcing the regulations so that operators actually comply with the requirements in the approvals,” Calabrese said.

“I would like to see Alberta Environment reopen this investigation and take some enforcement action against the approval holders.”