Rob Waters, Yellow Point resident & ground water user, retired biologist

Given my understanding of the issues around contaminants in biosolids, including PFAS, I was amazed as to learn about the shipping of CRD biosolids to the Nanaimo River watershed. Further review identified Nanaimo biosolids are also distributed in private forestlands following current regulatory guidance, which seems markedly inadequate.  As indicated in federal documentation other sources may include airport and firefighting practice areas.

Distributing biosolids in the areas around surface and groundwater sources, given our knowledge of biosolids contaminants, including PFAS and associated organic contaminants like pharmaceutical residues, seems misguided.  I realize this has been a moving target for generators and regulators but the issue has been around for decades and appropriate action is needed now.

While we do have the provincial Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) it is, in my opinion, inadequate to the task and needs updating. The up coming federal law amendment under the Canada Water Act may help spur on some new regional regulations.   

I acknowledge that the RDN has been conducting PFAS testing since 2024 – however while the PFAS levels were reported as low, recent information indicates that from a health perspective even low amounts are currently a concern. PFAS, like other Persistent Organic Pollutants (like PCBs), can recycle and accumulate, in the environment.  In a situation like this where compounds don’t breakdown readily even small amounts may accumulate over time affecting the environment, the watershed, our drinking water.

One should also acknowledge that the CRD is moving ahead with a biochar system, which at present, seems to be the most appropriate method of dealing with biosolids, PFAS and associated contaminants.

Given the associated uncertainties until the biosolids generators employ a biochar or equivalent system, it would seem prudent that the precautionary principle be employed and land disposal banned. 

As noted earlier, beyond the local, provincial scenario, there is an updated federal law under the Water Act to be implemented shortly that may shift responsibility to water utilities and municipal managers. In an interview with an environmental lawyer a recent Water Canada publication speaks to the issue QUOTE BELOW

On June 30, 2026, Canada’s new updated Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations will officially kick in. While the federal government is focused on banning the manufacture and import of “forever chemicals” (PFAS), water utilities and municipal managers are facing a completely different problem: an aggressive new wave of legal liability.

The article indicates that managing contamination is no longer just a technical engineering puzzle. It suggests that it is now a high-stakes legal minefield that includes the rising threat of property “stigma” lawsuits.

This may be in part reflected in the out right banning of biosolids disposal on lands in other jurisdictions, the EU, and some US states. In Maine, for instance, agricultural landowners, following State guidance for biosolids to be spread on land in that State, are now suing the State for the loss of use due to contamination.

As well, I should note that my focus here has been on drinking water concerns and not on general environmental habitat quality concerns and long-term effects on fish and associated biota in both fresh and marine habitats.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Support Documentation

(NRC) PFAS contamination class action case, which recently shook the sector by certifying $2 million in additional punitive damages specifically for a multi-year delay in telling the public about groundwater contamination.

The limits of incoming regulations, the rising threat of property “stigma” lawsuits, and why the era of “hide and assess” is officially over.

The lawyers in the case say that the message is clear. If you have good reason to believe that you have PFAS on your site, and you have good reason to believe it could be migrating off-site and potentially contaminating wells used for drinking water, you need to notify the potential recipients immediately so they can take action. You cannot let residents continue to potentially consume contaminated water without notifying them.

In the case the Health Canada 30 ng/L threshold or the Ontario Ministry of the Environment 70 ng/L threshold were not accepted as a get-out-of-jail-free card. There is no scientific proof that any level of this contamination is safe. In fact, if you read the Health Canada Guidelines in full, they state that the objective we need to achieve is ALARA—As Low As Reasonably Achievable. Period. Not 30 ng/L, not 70 ng/L.

The March 2025 Health Canada and Environment Canada Final State of PFAS Report reports explicitly states that PFAS causes severe health issues at lower concentrations than previously understood, that there are over 100 federal sites nationwide with confirmed/suspected PFAS contamination due to historical AFFF use, many of which are sites with residential communities relying on private groundwater wells in close proximity. The fact that the federal guidelines are 30 ng/L, while Ontario provincial guidelines sit at 70 ng/L, neither of which are established on any health-based criteria, shows how arbitrary this is. Government reliance on conflicting guidelines to decide whether or not to provide bottled water, install PFAS filtration, or disclose any information of potential drinking water to residential communities is entirely inappropriate.

Water Canada: With the 30 ng/L drinking water objective and the new federal restrictions arriving this June, do you expect a spike in “contamination stigma” lawsuits over falling property values near affected aquifers?

Michael: Yes, but it doesn’t actually stem from the regulations themselves. It is driven by growing public awareness of the problem, including both national media coverage and federal reporting on PFAS-contaminated hotspots sites nationwide. Frankly, these new regulations coming into effect on June 30th are not that significant in my books. They add a couple of prohibited substances to a forbidden list, but big deal. Most of those substances have already stopped being imported or used anyway. They don’t do anything particularly exciting. The real driver is that the public is waking up to the threat of potential PFAS contamination in their drinking water, particularly around airports and military bases, which is exacerbating contamination stigma and impacting property value in such communities

MELANSON Excerpt

The RDN also samples for the presence of PFAS in biosolids. Sampling began in 2024, after the EPA published new analytical procedures, Method 1633, to measure PFAS in wastewater or biosolids. Prior to 2024, standard testing methodologies were not available. So far, the number of sample events are too few to base conclusions on. However, the data provide insight on presence/absence of PFAS in RDN biosolids. When present, PFAS were detected in low amounts. Several other PFAS chemicals were not detected in any sample.