Federal-Provincial Assessment Review Panel for the Halifax-Dartmouth Wastewater Management System Volume 4, 23 March 1993 (Halifax: Halifax Harbour Cleanup Inc. 1994)
Volume 4 (St. Paul’s Parish Hall, Herring Cove, NS) – Evening Session
Introductory notes
The material in this volume deals specifically with the treatment of waste from the communities of Herring Cove, Spryfield, Purcell’s Cove, Macintosh Run.
Jim Axell, President, Metro Engineering: The Board of HHCI in considering the options and motions submitted to them selected the option with the lowest annual operating cost and that which causes the least disturbance and interference with the ground surface between Roach’s Pond and the ocean, this whole area in here and that is a tunnel option. The selected option consists of pumping Herring Cove flows back up to Roach’s Pond and then the flow proceeds under the Backlands by way of a tunnel to Purcells Cove under the Northwest Arm over to intersect the regional tunnel at Pier A and the regional tunnel, as Mr. Allan has just indicated flows over to the proposed treatment plant at McNabs Island.i
Axell: I want to move on to alternative technologies which have been offered for consideration to treat the Herring Cove/Mainland South flows. […] Lagoons by themselves do not produce effluents to meet current standards for discharge to the McIntosh Run. They also require large areas of flat or level land. Engineered wetlands or solar aquatic treatment are not currently ready-made solutions from wastewater treatment. […] Yesterday evening we heard from Sherwood Reed that a sixteen (16) hectare wetland would not achieve the effluent standards for discharge to the McIntosh Run. He suggested some fifty (50) hectares of active wetlands would be necessary which might need a total of between sixty (60) to (70) hectares; that is an area about the size of Lawlors Island or almost the size of Point Pleasant Park. […]
Madam Chair, it was suggested $29 million of the $59 million of the Coalition’s predicted savings could be achieved here. However, we estimated the cost of a sixty-right (68) hectare wetland which included an allowance for roads, berms and fences to be $25 million[.]ii
Earl Hickey, Jacques-Whitford, project coordinator, HHCI. Overview of the EAR as related to Herring Cove and Mainland South.
The selected alternatives improve the water quality in McIntosh Run […] It results in no untreated discharge to Watley’s Cove thereby resulting in an improved water quality and reduction in gear fouling that has been noted by fishermen of the area. The tunnel as proposed is well beneath the surface of the Backlands ranging in depth for forty-five (45) metres below surface resulting in no surface disturbance to the Backlands themselves.iii
[…]
I would like to speak specifically now to some of the issues related to groundwater, some of the specific concerns and some specific mitigation methods we have proposed to alleviate those.
Acid generation has been raised as a concern relative to the production of the tunnelling through acid bearing rock. A couple of mitigative measures which have been affected in minimizing these concerns include using flow barriers along the excavation, use of clay plugs which would impede groundwater movement but minimizing the potential for acid generation.iv [Continued]… In respect to dewatering the mitigation measures which have been incorporated in the design, of course, the avoidance of surface water bodies along the tunnel[.] […] Basically, we have acknowledged there is a potential for some potential impacts on groundwater. We judge these to be insignificant and of a temporary nature being, in the worse case, less than three (3) months duration. We have also committed to a detailed monitoring program for groundwater in areas that are particularly sensitive or of concern.v
[…] I would like also to point out that there are other areas which are serviced which are currently not developed and the City itself does not anticipate any development in the Backlands for at least twenty (20) years.vi
Randy Ball [resident, Herring Cove]: That is where the greatest concern is. As it stands right now, that would provide sewer but the way the Municipal Development Plan is written, it would be a 10,000 square foot lot without water and one of the major problems at Herring Cove when they brought this pipe down, they brought a sewer but they didn’t bring any water system with it at all and some people are in the precarious position of course that they can’t hook up to the sewer because they can’t hook up to the sewer because they will end up destroying their well because of its location.vii
Bob Parker [HHCI]: And I guess the question is: if your Municipal Development Plan indicates you want low density development, if your septic tanks and wells are functioning properly and if there is perception of wanting to maintain a village character, is there an option in your minds not to service the village of Herring Cove in the future.viii
Carvel Reyno [resident, Herring Cove]: […] I think the advantage of having a serviced area along that particular road if that piping is going to be on the west side of the Cove, it would be an advantage to a few houses but the extensive blasting and constructing that would have to go on to do all that I’m sure or at least I feel strongly that it may destroy more wells than the value of the services that could be obtained by relatively few residents along the west side of the Cove.ix
Uncertainty in the project:
Ms. Armstrong: So it hasn’t been decided exactly where it’s going to come? Near the Dalhousie school? The old Dalhousie school?
Mr. Axell: The precise location hasn’t been fixed at this point because the detail design hasn’t been done but it’s generally in that area.x
***
Robert Chisholm (MLA Halifax-Atlantic): I was sitting back and looking at the slides and so on and sort of reflecting back that it seemed like we were looking at the same – basically the same proposal that we saw in the spring or in all of 1991 or perhaps even before that and I know that there were an awful lot of public meetings and a lot of people attended, myself included. I guess I was just kind of wondering what we had accomplished in the concerns that we had raised throughout that period. For instance, there was an awful lot of concern raised about the tunnelling from Roach’s Pond across to the Northwest Arm. I don’t if that’s been adequately addressed. […]
I think I’m somewhat intimidated by the amount of paper that is generated by this process. It’s just like walking into this room and looking at one of the tables and seeing the mounds of paper. I find it extremely intimidating. I wasn’t intimidated this afternoon speaking to 1,000 people as I am walking in and participating in these discussions.xi
[…] One of the things, I guess, probably the most important thing that I want to deal with tonight is – and I know that Mr. Calda will roll his eyes when he hears me say this because I said it throughout the meetings in 1991 – but that deals with the tenure of the debate that we are faced with right now. […] [T]here was quite a bit of discussion in the newspaper and a lot of controversy about the nature of the debate – accusations and counter-accusations being fired back and forth – and it upset me because I don’t think there is any question that any of the people here or any of the people involved in this issue are very concerned about the pollution that is going into Halifax Harbour.
People want to see this cleaned up. […] There are also people that are also concerned about the effective and efficient use of their tax dollars. For that reason there are going to be questions and there are going to be challenges of the give approach of the day and I think that’s extremely important[.] […] [The Metro Coalition] are able to dedicate the time and they spent a lot of time and a lot of energy and a lot of their own money to look very seriously into some of the questions that many of us have rasied over the last few years about how this project is proceeding. […I commend them for that and I get extremely upset when I see, you know, the letter – with all due respect to Mr. Calda – the letter that came across my desk dated 10 November 1992 which in effect challenged the very legitimacy of the Metro Coalition for Harbour Cleanup.xii
HHCI wrote the following concerning the MCHC to Chisholm, which was read by him into the records: “Fuelled to a certain extent by pressure from the coalition of special interest groups called Metro Coalition for Harbour Cleanup. Most importantly, you should be aware that the views of this coalition are in direct opposition to the consensus of the community.” […] I think it’s important to realize and important for us to be aware of the fact that the proponent is a Crown Corporation. The proponent is carrying out an important function here but the Crown Corporation, the proponent, does not have all the answers and it is not above being questioned.xiii
[…]
I am looking forward to getting the answers about the reduction of the hazardous waste at the source and looking forward to hearing the presentation of the group like the Wildlands Working Group that will be asking for further clarification of why their proposal to route the tunnel down Williams Lake Road or inland that would not be necessarily as vital and as sensitive as the Purcells Cove Backlands.xiv
The Chairperson: It has been remarked, in fact, that this is a quite unusual environmental assessment, in fact, because everybody wants the same basic thing to happen which is the improvement, the cleanup of the Harbour.xv
Mr. MacKinley [resident, Old Sambro Road]: My concerns have to do with the toxins, the poisons that are in the effluents. Another concern is the site. I’m concerned about the method of disinfection which they have chosen to advocate. I’m concerned about their sludge management policy or proposal as well. I’m also very concerned about the cost effectiveness of their plan. To begin with, toxins. There are many toxins now polluting the Halifax – the Metro Harbour. These pollutants and I quote page 55 from the Fournier Task Force Report: are for instance, zinc, copper, lead. Mercury, there’s PCB’s there’s PAHs and sorts of amazing acronyms which I never heard of before until I got involved with this. The fact that we are poisoning our environment in many ways and we’re endangering the health of ourselves, we’re endangering the health of our children, and the children’s children.xvi […]
From Founier: 6x zinc; 2.5x copper; 3.5x lead; and also mercury contamination. (66)
Toxins are in the waste streams. The Halifax Harbour Cleanup Incorporated Plan for primary treatment will not deal with these toxins. […] I believe that primary treatment is not enough. […] [Toxins] are being accumulated by the mollusc and the lobsters and fishes that go in the Harbour. […] The Fournier Task Force [stated] that a complete toxic source control reduction program be implemented as an integral part of the primary treatment plant which HHCI has been mandated to create. I spoke with Mr. Paul Calda on the phone a few months ago […] he seemed somewhat proud to say that the recommendations were being very duly considered by the HHCI. Then I asked him “well, why not recommendation #14, Toxic Source Control? Prevent the toxins from going into the waste stream in the first place. He said: “That’s not our mandate.”xvii
[…] Another concern I have is disinfection. […] [C]hlorine is not necessary. I mean the engineers, the economists and whoever else work for HHCI may be able to show on a nice chart that may cost five (5) percent or twenty (20) less than ultraviolet rays but they have not factored in the long term environmental costs. […] They are taking a short term cheap way out.xviii […] I believe there are many sides to this story. There are experts on one side and there are experts on the other. Who do you chose to trust?xix
Suggestion of “storm dynamic separators.”xx
Mr. Steve Fudge [in response to Mackinlay): Yes, I want to certainly acknowledge Mr. Mackinlay’s – you know, his point of view and his contribution. Certainly HHCI and myself personally share most of his concerns particularly as related to the condition of the Harbour, the toxins like metals, the PCBs, PAHs which are present in the Harbour sediments. There are elevated levels in the body burdens of lobsters for example. Certainly, I have been indicated [sic] that there are indications of lesions on flat fish and things of this nature. […]
I think I have to disagree a little bit about primary [treatment]. One cannot oversell the primary, but before you do anything else, you have to do primary. Primary is the first stage. This is the first stage of the project. We have to collect the sewage and we have to treat it with primary and then you go on to additional treatment levels. Thereafter, you have a number of options.
Primary treatment and disinfection will remove fifty (50) per cent or thereabouts of the solids, of the settleable solids there as well as the floatables which you mentioned. The other thing is disinfection, of course, will remove a good portion of the biological toxins like bacteria, viruses and pathogens. I think we’ve got to keep remembering that. That’s why we disinfect to remove that component in the wastewater,; not only the organic and inorganic toxins but the biological toxins which are in that wastewater as well. So it more than just floatables. I just wanted to make that point. […] [T]here certainly is no indication in any of the studies, literature or modelling that we have done that by collecting and primary treating and disinfecting this effluent and discharging it into the inner Harbour through a diffuser will result in blooms of toxic algae, will kill large areas of the Harbour and other claims that were made by Dr. Patriquin. […] The point of the matter is that all this effluent is going in right now, today. […] It is going in untreated. There is no removal of solids whatsoever and we don’t see those kinds of toxic blooms. So why, if you put primary treatment on board […] would you all of a suddenly get total kills of everything in the Harbour and toxic blooms if we’re not getting it today and we have all those outfalls discharging this raw sewage all around the Harbour[.]xxi
Bob Parker [HHCI] [Question to the Metro Coalition for Harbour Cleanup re: alternative technologies]
I would like to start with a series of question to the Metro Coalition and it has to do with some of the alternative technologies specifically the engineered wetlands proposals as contained in the Ecology Action submission by Roslin Lydon of the 15th of February and the P. Lane report in alternative technologies which was submitted to the Panel. […] I would also like to say that I, as a Panel member, am very interested in engineered wetlands concepts as they have been presented. I think it’s very important for the Panel to have information to these set of questions so that we have meaningful discussion about them when it is presented on Friday.
Wetland for mainland south EAC stated 16-20 hectrares. HHCI experts claim it would need to be 50 hectares plus or minus.
Bob Parker: I would like a reasoned judgment in your minds about the adequacy of the land base that has been projected today. May second question relates to the suitability of constructing an engineered wetlands [sic] in what I understand to be an undulating landscape of many areas of exposed granitic bedrock. xxii
The third question deals with the conservation of groundwater quality. I don’t understand how you construct an engineered wetlands [sic] in the terrain that is being suggested around the Roach’s Pond area without creating an impervious membrane between the between the contact surface for the effluent and the bedrock regime or the soil regime there. […] Would it be a clay based membrane? Do you lay down a neoprene based membrane and what are the kinds of associated costs and construction concerns?
The fifth question relates to a climatic issue. I would like to get a better understanding of what happens during the slow period during the winter, the accelerated start-up period in the spring and especially in relationship to that heavy levels of rainfall that we experience in the spring and the fall.
[…] I would like to just finish these questions and comments by stating that the intent here is not to disprove the viability of engineered wetlands but it’s important for the Panel to have a better understanding of the long term consequences of this concept and I think you can tell by my questions that we treat this very seriously.xxiii
Peter Pelham [resident, Herring Cove, representative for Herring Cove, Fournier taskforce]
There are areas as recently as 1986 on the request of the Herring Cove Rate Payers were electroseen by the Federal Fisheries Department and were found to have been breeding ground for resident sea trout which enter from the salt water estuary and travel all the way up through and breed up in this area. This was prior to the institution of the City of Halifax construction of a park, an industrial park [actually a business park] called Bayer’s Lake Park. Our MLA at the time was also the sitting Premier of the Province, Mr. John Buchanan and we protested this park going in a provincial park under the Protection of Waters Act.
Our requests were ignored and his response was to give the city $886,000 to create a new blasted waterway aqueduct that removed thirty- eight (38) feet of elevation which protected the park [Bayers Lake Wilderness Area] and institute an aqueduct which we can see in this photograph which dumps into Long Lake Park. This was completed in November of 1986. I must say in fairness to our local Fisheries people, they tried to have it stopped through the court system but the whole thing was quelled. The aqueduct went in. As a result, the slate in this area which was blasted for all the industrial complex that we see turned out to be high level aluminium. Every time it rains, we have an acid wash which comes down through the programmed aqueduct which enters our provincial park which is the headwaters to our McIntosh Run which house this migratory run of sea trout. Also Atlantic salmon were found by the Department of Fisheries and there was also a very large school of breeding gaspereaux [alewife][.] […] This whole fisheries has been entirely been wiped out with a permit from the provincial government issued allowing this waterway to be totally polluted by the industrial park.xxiv
Pelham on the Herring Cove account in the HHCI proposal:
Yesterday, I was good enough to receive one of these [HHCI reports] from Mr. Calda’s secretary and it doesn’t resemble one iota what I presented within the Task Force, what the public hearings in this village presented to the Task Force when I was a member[.] […] The whole thing is a false manifestation and not our viewpoint.xxv
[…] We as a community, do not want to pay to install gigantic pumps to pump Mainland South sewage up 66 metres of elevation over a 3600 metre distance to go to a substantion at Tribune Head to then be roaded after you dig up the entire village[.] Our problem had been the arrogance and the ignorance of our MLA to realize that it is very cost prohibitive to take Spryfield Mainland sewage pump it exactly as this study says from these learned gentlemen and their staff to pump it in this direction.xxvi
Axell in response to Pelham: And the basic elements of it [the Herring Cove proposal] is that the Mainland South area, which arrives at Roach’s Pond, will be diverted into the tunnel at this point. […] The excess flows will still go through the Roach’s Pond CSO. However, instead of running into the overflow that now goes into the McIntosh Run, it will be diverted into the other section of the tunnel and be diverted down and discharged into the ocean at this point.xxvii
The Chairperson: I think what’s being dealt with here Mr. Pelham, is in the original environmental assessment report, HHCI did as any good planning group would do, and indeed were asked to do by the guidelines.xxviii
Alderman Ball [Representing Herring Cove]
See page 180 for 1972 DREE (Department of Regional Economic Expansion)
I would urge the panel. And I would urge HHCI, to respect the work that many people have done in this community, and to reverse the Watley’s Cove sewer outfall from whence it came back to Roach’s Pond. […] You want every municipal unit to take care of its own. I really think that Halifax County would probably, knowing its track record, be only too glad if the pipe was cut off at the city limits to take care of the problem in Herring Cove.xxix
Ms. Kathleen Hall [President, Williams Lake Conservation Company]: My difficulty is that from reading the information that we’ve been provided by HHCI, they kind of were talking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they’re saying there won’t be any development [of the Backlands] for 20 years. But then they’re saying, “Well, the future land-use planning says RDD. So nay development would be consistent with the plan. So what’s the big problem.” I’m unclear. I don’t know what the City plans. And I don’t know when. So I think there should be some clarification of the time frame as well.
Calda [in response]: One of the aspects of the information leading to this knowledge is the development pattern, planning considerations. We have not invented those. We have asked the City of Halifax. We have been advised. […] We certainly ask the City, and they probably would confirm it. I’m afraid, however, that the residents may get some kind of false security from that. They can only provide opinion at this time. And that’s all they gave us [HHCI]. That may not satisfy, or may seemingly satisfy the residents, but may not be what they are really after.xxx
