Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
• Records relating to drinking water experiment conducted in Wiarton in summer of 2000.
• Sections 65(8.1)(a) and 65(9) do not apply
• Section 17(1) (third party information) not upheld
• Section 23 (public interest override) applies
• Section 24 (reasonable search) not upheld
• Ministry ordered to disclose records at issue to appellant and to conduct additional searches for responsive records.
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
BACKGROUND
Wiarton is a town of approximately 2,300 people in Bruce County, Ontario. In 1999, Wiarton and several other surrounding communities were amalgamated into a new municipality – the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.
Wiarton’s water supply is treated at a filtration plant, which is located on the shores of Colpoys Bay, an inlet off Georgian Bay. In the summer of 2000, Wiarton was the site of a two-month experiment in which the disinfectant used to treat the town’s tap water was changed from chlorine to chlorine dioxide.
Chlorine is the most commonly used disinfectant at water treatment plants in North America. However, according to the Ministry of the Environment (the Ministry), chlorine dioxide is currently used at about 13 per cent of water treatment plants in North America and at numerous plants in Europe. One purpose of using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant is to kill pathogens that may be resistant to chlorine.
The pilot project in Wiarton was initiated by a chemical company that had developed a new chlorine dioxide generator. Other participants included the civil engineering department of an Ontario university, the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA), the Ministry, and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, whose elected council had approved the project.
The chemical company’s chloride dioxide generator was installed at the town’s water filtration plant, and from June 20 to August 22, 2000, chlorine dioxide was used as an alternative disinfectant to treat Wiarton’s water supply. The chemical company was responsible for operating and monitoring the chlorine dioxide generator, and the university was responsible for conducting a monitoring study.
In the midst of the experiment, a number of Wiarton residents complained that unexplained bleach spots were appearing on their clothes and towels after being washed using water supplied by the town’s filtration plant. Numerous reports appeared in both the national and local media in which Wiarton residents expressed concern about the water experiment and whether it was having an adverse effect on their health. In an article in The Toronto Star (“Drinking water experiment upsets residents,” August 22, 2000), one resident complained that, “We feel like we’ve been used like some sort of lab animal.”
In response, the university tested samples of clothing provided by Wiarton residents to determine if the bleaching could have been caused by the chlorine dioxide that was in the town’s water supply during the two-month trial. They were unable to reproduce the discolouration reported by residents by applying the same chlorine dioxide levels used in the trial.
Both provincial and local government officials assured town residents that the water supply was safe. In addition, the Ministry and the university stated that their monitoring tests showed that the town’s water quality remained excellent throughout the trial.
ACCESS REQUEST
A request was submitted to the Ministry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to the complete Ministry and OCWA files relating to the drinking water experiment conducted in Wiarton in the summer of 2000.
The Ministry transferred part of the request to the OCWA for a decision on whether to provide access to some of the requested records. The OCWA provided some records to the requester. In Order PO-2353, Acting Adjudicator Alex Kulynych required the OCWA to conduct additional searches for responsive records.
The Ministry located some responsive records and responded to parts of the request by issuing an interim decision, indicating its intention to provide access to some of the requested information and providing an estimate of the fee it would charge for providing access.
THE INITIAL APPEALS
The requester appealed the Ministry’s fee estimate and appeal file PA-040060-1 was opened. This appeal file was closed when the Ministry waived the fee. A second appeal file, PA-040060-2, was opened in which the appellant appealed the Ministry’s refusal to disclose information, but was closed when it became clear that the appeal was premature because the Ministry had not yet made a final access decision.