The Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories (CCIL) is a trade organization representing the interests of the private laboratory sector in Canada. The Environmental Division of CCIL focuses on the private environmental laboratory sector. Its members include all geographic regions of the country and generate over two thirds of the data produced by private environmental labs in both Canada and in Ontario. Thus, CCIL is a legitimate spokesperson for the private environmental laboratory community (private labs).
CCIL member labs generate much of the monitoring data for Ontario’s drinking water supplies. Conflicting opinions have been expressed regarding our capability and indeed our integrity to do the work. Thus, it is important that our position in this matter be clearly stated.
Private labs have been analyzing drinking water in Ontario for many years. In fact, the private labs involved in the analysis of Walkerton water produced prompt and accurate data on all samples, and Justice O’Connor’s report was complimentary of the private lab community and the accreditation system within which it operates.
The private labs have been providing and will continue to provide prompt and accurate data to ensure the quality of Ontario’s drinking water. Approximately 40 private lab facilities are currently carrying out drinking water analysis. Thirty municipal and provincial labs are also providing test results.
Regulation 459, hastily written in response to the Walkerton tragedy, requires testing labs to immediately notify, verbally, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Health and the waterworks of any exceedence of regulatory limits in microbiological or chemical parameters. (The preceding Ontario Drinking Water Objectives recommended notification for microbiological parameters only). It also requires that all labs upload all drinking water data to the MOE database.
Labs did (and are doing) their best to comply. MOH officers and waterworks officials are often very difficult to reach, making notification problematic and, indeed, often it wasn’t clear whether samples were actually samples subject to notification under the Regulation. In the absence of any guidance from MOE, labs developed their own internal systems for detecting and reporting exceedences
Harshly criticized in the Walkerton Report for their lax oversight, MOE proceeded to draft and enact a Safe Drinking Water Act. Thus enabled, six MOE staff have now been recruited and trained to inspect the private labs. In addition, Investigations and Enforcement Branch (IEB) has been vigorously pursuing even the most minor infractions.
For example, one member laboratory which has accurately carried out many thousand drinking water tests and promptly made hundreds of exceedence notifications, was charged by IEB for failing to notify exceedences on two parameters of no acute health risk. The missed notification for which they were charged resulted from human error, a report generated but not reviewed late on a Friday afternoon. When discovered Monday morning, the notification was immediately carried out. Considering that the MOE and MOH action for any notification of these parameters is simply to take another sample, this is hardly a major issue.
One parameter is monitored annually, the other quarterly. The monitoring frequency itself verifies that the chemicals do not represent an acute threat. CCIL labs have reported numerous exceedences on these parameters. Reaction from MOE and MOH staff contacted has been inconsistent but generally displayed a lack of concern.
The notification process is critical for bacteriological tests (for which it was designed) because immediate human health impacts are possible.
This does not mean that the lab took their responsibility lightly. They, in fact, unsolicited, brought the error to the attention of MOE and discussed fully with them their amended procedures to prevent any such reoccurrence.
This lab then faced a fine of up to $6 million dollars under the Act but settled for substantially less. Is this justice? The potential alone of such a fine is extremely destructive to the labs. It implies serious illegality and fraud (as opposed to simple human error). Environmental labs are small businesses, the backbone of Ontario’s economy. None could survive such a fine and many are debating whether to remain in the business
Surely there are more critical issues for the Investigations and Enforcement Branch of MOE to pursue than an isolated error, quickly corrected, which had no human health implications. Such overreactions waste taxpayer dollars and unfairly damage the reputation and morale of the laboratory community and the hard working analysts dedicated to the protection of Ontario’s drinking water
The investigation and charges described above preceded the new MOE lab inspectors. Under even more scrutiny, will more charges, equally unrealistic, result? Despite numerous requests from CCIL, MOE has yet to provide any reference methods or quality objectives for the analysis of drinking water. One wonders to what standards our labs will be audited. Might not some of this augmented work force be better channeled in that direction?
CCIL’s environmental labs have worked closely with MOE, particularly the Laboratory Services Branch, for almost a decade. We endorse inspection to weed out any “bad apples” but this heavy-handed approach serves no one. Make penalties reflective of the infraction. The private lab community has worked very hard under difficult circumstances to serve and protect the people of Ontario. They deserve praise, not persecution.
The Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories can be contacted at, Tel: 613-746-3919, Fax: 613-746-4324.
See our home page on how to order your subscription. We regret we can only accept orders from Canada and the United States.