City of Thunder Bay

Department: Transportation & Works
Division: Environment
Date Prepared: July 3, 2009
Meeting Date: July 20, 2009
Subject: Water Fluoridation
Report No. 2009.123

RECOMMENDATION

With respect to Report No. 2009.123 (Environment), we recommend that City Council direct Administration to retain professional services to pilot study the addition of

fluoride

to the City’s drinking water, with specific focus on the corrosion potential for the City’s infrastructure;

AND THAT the costs associated with the pilot study be considered in the 2010 capital budget submission;

AND THAT the results of the pilot study be reported to City Council and the Thunder Bay District Health Unit;

AND THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign all documentation related to this matter, in form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the General Manager of Transportation & Works;

AND THAT any necessary by-laws be presented to City Council for ratification.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview on the feasibility of fluoridating the Thunder Bay drinking water supply. Fluoride can be added to drinking water as a public health measure to protect dental health and prevent or reduce tooth decay.

Where a municipality owns and operates a waterworks system, the process for establishing a fluoridating system is governed by the

Fluoridation Act

, R.S.O 1990, Chapter F.22.

The Thunder Bay District Health Unit has provided documentation regarding the public health benefit of fluoridation as attached in Appendix ‘A’.

The effects on the Bare Point water chemistry of three fluoridating agents were tested in a lab. Each test result indicates that the fluoridating agents increase the aggressiveness of the water. These results indicate that further study is required.

Fluoridating agents are considered to be dangerous chemicals to handle. Comprehensive training would need to be provided to staff on the operation of the fluoridation plant for the protection of their safety, the safety of others and the environment.

Total costs to add fluoride are estimated to be in the range of $696,800 (capital and operating costs) for the first year of operation. Continuous annual operating costs are estimated to be in the range of $234,800, based on 2009 chemical costs. These estimates do not include any costs associated with corrosion control.

DISCUSSION Water Fluoridation

Fluoride occurs naturally in many source waters in Canada. Trace levels of fluoride are found in Lake Superior. Fluoride can be added to drinking water as a public health measure to protect dental health and prevent or reduce tooth decay.

In Ontario, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 32 (referred to in this report as “SDWA”) provides for the protection of human health and the prevention of drinking-water health hazards through the control and regulation of drinking-water systems and drinking-water testing. Ontario Regulation 170/03 under the SDWA specifies the fluoride concentration range for drinking water systems that provide fluoridation (0.5mg/L to 1.5mg/L).

The Thunder Bay District Health Unit has provided documentation regarding the public health benefit of fluoridation as attached in Appendix ‘A’.

The Fluoridation Act

Where a municipality owns and operates a waterworks system, the process for establishing a fluoridating system is governed by the

Fluoridation Act

, R.S.O 1990, Chapter F.22. The Act specifies that the council of the municipality may by by-law establish, maintain and operate a fluoridation system in connection with the waterworks system. The council may, before passing the by-law, submit to the electors of the municipality a question to determine whether or not the electors are in favour of fluoridating the water supply of the municipality.

Where a question is implemented, and a majority of the voters who respond to the question approve fluoridation, it becomes mandatory for the council to pass the by-law to implement a fluoridation system. On the other hand, if a majority of the voters who respond to the question are against fluoridation, the council is not allowed to pass a by-law to implement fluoridation until the question has again been submitted to the electors of the municipality and it has received the affirmative vote of majority of the electors who vote on it.

Unlike the situation with ballot questions under the

Municipal Elections Act, 1996

, S.O. 1996 c. 32, the response to the question is binding regardless of voter turnout.

Electors may, by presentation of a petition, submit to the council a request that a question under this Act be submitted to the electors. The petition must be signed by at least ten percent of the electors in the municipality.

Water service customers located outside the municipal boundary are, with some exceptions for property owners, not eligible electors. These customers do not appear to have a say under either the

Fluoridation Act

or the

Municipal Elections Act, 1996

. They could get a “voice” by registering under the

Municipal Elections Act, 1996

(s.39.1) for the right to campaign for or against the question, but there is no process by which they can attain the right to vote on the question directly. Water service customers outside the municipal boundary include residents on the Fort William First Nation Reserve, and occupants of various service properties adjacent to the municipal boundary.

Status of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Policy Review

Administration became aware in February, 2008 that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) would be undertaking a policy review on the use of inorganic fluorides. At the March 3, 2008 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Administration requested that any decision regarding addition of fluoride to Thunder Bay’s drinking water be deferred pending further direction from the Province on the use of fluoridating agents in water systems.

The MOE review on fluoridating agents has not been concluded, however, Administration is presenting this report to provide an update on the review of this matter.

Fluoridation Impacts on Water Chemistry

The drinking water produced from the Bare Point Water Treatment Plant is taken from Lake Superior and then treated. Water quality testing results of this source water have continually shown that the Lake Superior water is of high quality, is soft, and of low alkalinity. Testing has also demonstrated that the water is very low in dissolved major ions and metals. These characteristics mean that the water is of excellent quality and as a result has little buffering capacity – the ability to resist changes in the water chemistry.

The effects on the water chemistry of three fluoridating agents, hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride and sodium fluoride, were all tested on Bare Point drinking water in a laboratory controlled setting. The impact on the water chemistry with fluoride addition was tested to determine whether the addition of fluoride would have the potential to increase the number occurrences of elevated lead levels in the community.

The results of this preliminary study show that all fluoridating agents, when added to the drinking water at a concentration of 0.7ppm (the optimal fluoride concentration rate as recommended by an expert panel convened by Health Canada in 2007), increased lead leaching from the lead pipe.

Thunder Bay is required to develop a corrosion control plan as a result of the Community Lead Sampling Program. This plan will be developed upon receipt of guidance from the MOE and may consist of variety of measures, including, but not limited to, increased flushing of the system, replacement of lead services, or may include chemical addition in part or in whole.

Testing conducted on fluoridated Bare Point Water indicates that a second chemical agent may need to be added to the drinking water to balance the addition of fluoride.

Safe Handling

Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA), Sodium Fluoride and Sodium Silicofluoride are each considered to be dangerous chemicals when in contact with skin or eyes, or when inhaled or digested. Certain levels of exposure to each chemical can be fatal.

Comprehensive staff training would need to be provided to all staff in the operation of the fluoridation plant for the protection of their safety, the safety of others and the environment. Training would include, but not be limited to, safe handling procedures, emergency protocols, spill containment, accidental relief, health and safety procedures, and operations and maintenance procedures.

Personal protective equipment, including neoprene gloves, boots, chemical resistant suit and respirator and in some cases a positive pressure full face respirator would need to be worn by staff members when handling these chemicals.

A risk assessment would need to be completed to include addition of fluoride along with a review of emergency response procedures.

ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTIONS

Administration’s considered recommendation appears at the outset of this report. Council may decide upon a different path. This Section of the Report contains wording that Council may consider with respect to other options.

Option One

With respect to Report No. 2009.123 (Environment), we recommend that City Council direct Administration to place the following question on the ballot for the 2010 municipal election: “Are you in favour of the fluoridation of the public water supply of this Municipality?”.

Option Two

With respect to Report No. 2009.123 (Environment), we recommend that, subject to applicable law, no change to the City’s drinking water treatment process be initiated at this time.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

An expansion to the existing building footprint at the Bare Point Water Treatment Plant would be needed to facilitate the addition of fluoride.

The following table outlines a preliminary estimate of the capital and operating costs needed to add fluoride to the water system. This estimate does not include any costs associated with chemical addition for corrosion control. A corrosion control study would be needed to fully understand the impact to the water chemistry and any associated costs.

Fluoride Addition	First Year Costs	Annual Operating Costs
Capital Cost	$462,000	n/a
Operating Cost	$234,800	$234,800
Total Cost	$696,800	$234,800

* These costs are related to water only. Estimated costs are based upon a 1mg/L chemical application rate. Any associated rate increases will also impact the sewer rate.

City Administration is currently developing a financial plan for the water system. Currently, without consideration of these additional costs, the annual water funding infrastructure gap is in excess of three million dollars.

The addition of fluoride would impact the current and future cash flows and create the need for further rate increases.

Further consideration as to how the costs of fluoridating the water would be recovered from our customers is needed.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that an expansion to the Bare Point Water Treatment would be required to add fluoride to the water system. It is further concluded that preliminary testing has demonstrated the need to gain a better understanding of the impacts of fluoridation on Bare Point drinking water.

Fluoride addition increases the cost to provide potable water.

BACKGROUND

At the December 3, 2007 Committee of the Whole Meeting, a deputation in support of community water fluoridation was received from Dr. Peter Cooney, Chief Dental Office of Health Canada, Dr. Peter DeGiacomo, Dentist in Thunder Bay, Dr. Nancy Cameron, Medical Officer of Health, Thunder Bay District Health Unit and Ms. Susan Andrew-Cotter, Public Health Nurse.

At the December 10, 2007 Committee of the Whole meeting, a resolution was passed directing Administration to prepare a report on the feasibility of fluoridating the Thunder Bay drinking water supply. This report was to include, but not be limited to, safe handling, regulatory impacts, the

Fluoridation Act

and financial implications.

Administration became aware in February, 2008 that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) would be undertaking a policy review on the use of inorganic fluorides. At the March 3, 2008 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Administration requested that any decision regarding addition of fluoride to Thunder Bay’s drinking water be deferred pending further direction from the Province on the use of fluoridating agents in water systems.

Four plebiscites with respect to fluoridation have been held previously. Three occurred in Fort William in 1961, 1965, 1967 and one was held in 1976 in Thunder Bay on the question “Are you in favour of the fluoridation of the public water supply of this Municipality?” The majority of the voters who responded to the question in each case voted against fluoridation.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Appendix ‘A’ – Information from the Thunder Bay District Health Unit – Distributed Separately.

PREPARED BY:

Kerri Marshall, Manager – Environment Division

This report signed and verified by Darrell Matson, General Manager – Transportation & Works on July 10, 2009

See original