Federal-Provincial Assessment Review Panel for the Halifax-Dartmouth Wastewater Management System (Halifax: Halifax Harbour Cleanup Inc. 1994)
Volume 16 [Commonwealth Ballroom, Halifax Hilton, Halifax, NS, 3 April 1993, Morning Session]
Opening Remarks
HHCI/Fudge
Rosalee Lydon, Ecology Action Centre: After careful consideration and deliberation of the Environmental Assessment Report by HHCI, and the current proposal to treat Metro sewage, I am of the conclusion that there are components of this report that are unacceptable.
In my paper, I address three of these components. They are: untreated toxics, HHCI’s plan to bring the – to tunnel the sewage from Mainland South over to McNabs Island for primary treatment, and thirdly, the Oil From Sludge, OFS technology.
I will present alternatives to this plan, which are sustainable, effective, and affordable.
The folly of the plan for conventional primary treatment, at a cost of nearly half a billion dollars, will be addressed.
Owing to time considerations, I leave the OFS technology to the very end of my presentation. […] My conclusions though, are that HHCI has failed to show that the Oil From Sludge technology and the backup plan to incinerate the sewage sludge should be avoided at all costs.i
[…]
Let us read this together; it is important. HHCI has no plans to deal with the very toxic chemicals and metals that are dumped daily into the Harbour. It claims that the removal of toxic substances at source is not part of its mandate, yet a crucial, and that is a quote, recommendation of the Fournier Task Force was that a programme to remove toxic waste materials at source be developed immediately, proceeding parallel with the design of the treatment facilities. Page 77 of the Founier Task Force Report:
The Halifax Harbour Task Force, under the chairmanship of Dr. Robert Fournier, recommended primary treatment, which does not remove toxic chemicals or metals, on the understanding that toxic substances would be removed before they enter the treatment system.
Members of the Panel and the public, HHCI must be challenged on its assertion that the removal of toxic substances at source is not part of its mandate. There is no equivocacy in the fact that the removal of toxic substances at source is part of its mandate; in nay informed mind, the most important part of HHCI’s mandate [sic]. Isabel Heathcote has described a paradigmii shift away from the notions of end of pipe controls, towards source controls. Metro’s Pollution Abatement Program must begin with source control of toxins, and industrial pretreatment.
The research on sediments of the Harbour floor, which was discussed a couple of nights ago, has indicated to some extent the degree and kind of toxic contamination in the Harbour. More disturbing findings are documented in the research of N. Prouse, on lobster and Tay et al. 1991, on fish. The findings of hepatic lesions or changes in the liver of flounder, Tay et al., 1991, for example, are strongly suggestive of toxic contamination. These findings on toxic contaminants are more frightening and demanding of remedial action than any of the studies that have been conducted on bacterial contamination.
I am going to repeat that: it is very important. Those findings on toxic contaminants, on living organisms, living species in the Harbour are more frightening, I think, and demanding of remedial actioniii than any of the studies that have been conducted to date on bacterial contamination.
If a treatment plant for Metro’s wastewater does only one thing, than it must be to remove the toxics. The poisoned fish recently found in the Harbour are a sad testimony to this fact.
I will move on now to conventional primary treatment. There are four objectionable substances in wastewater: solids, toxics, nutrients and pathogens. Primary treatment is an initial level of wastewater treatment which uses screens and settling tanks to remove most of the solids that float to the top or settle out in the bottom as sludge. It removes about half the solids suspended in the water. It does not remove toxics, as already said, and reduced the amount of organic matter, and hence biochemical oxygen demand, BOD, by about 30 per cent.
Primary treatment is so inefficient at destroying pathogens that the treated effluent requires disinfection before it is discharged into the receiving waters. Unfortunately, HHCI plans to disinfect with Chlorine, a substance that has been recently recognizediv as one of the world’s most serious pollution problems.
In additions, pathogens are actually destroyed when they are subjected to cold, fast moving seawater high in oxygen. While there may be a need for disinfection in Halifax Harbour, it is not as imperative as when effluent flows into a contained freshwater system. In any case, there are safer, cheaper alternatives to this proposal, as subsequently described.
So, in essence, the proposal will be effective in dealing with only one of the four harmful substances in wastewater, heavy or floating solids. Pathogens will be destroyed, but through a disinfection process that will introduce additional toxins into the Harbour, and will result in, I think, greater problems than were there before treatment.
There are environmental costs and benefits to treating Metro sewage at more than one site and with a natural alternative technology. A natural system yielding high levels of treatment is feasible for at least one part of Metro, and many for certain industrial areas as well.v
In nature, a wetland cleans the waters that flows through it, an engineered wetland is a constructed marsh that builds on nature’s way of cleansing waters. The construction of wetlands to treat wastewater is an established technology used in many parts of the world. There are 250 constructed wetlands in the US alone.
[…]
They work well in cold climates, as attested to the engineering awards recently presented for the design of a treatment facility in the community of Teslin, in the Yukon.
A constructed wetland could well be the most practical efficient way to treat the sewage of Mainland South; a plan which, I believe, was presented to you last week by G. Lakshman has designedvi wetlands from Quebec to the Yukon.
The City of Montreal also won an Environmental Achievement Award for its design of a wetland that purifies the water in a public beach. The system is receiving international attention, and it cleans the entire volume of the beach water every two days, through thousands of native aquatic plants that they have there.
[…] Removal of suspended solids. As I said before, you get about 50 per cent of the solids thatvii are suspended in the water column, which are removed with primary treatment, in contrast to the wetland model, which removes about 90 percent.
[…] Primary treatment reduces the amount of organic matter, and enhance biochemical oxygen demand, by about 30 per cent. Now, the storm king separator, and I am not sure about this, but it might actually fare a little better at about 35 per cent. At best, primaryviii treatment is about the same as a storm king separator. , in contrast to a wetland, which reduces BOD by about 85 per cent.
[…] Now the overflow from Mainland South is designated for the environmentally sensitive Northwest Arm. The estimated rate of overflow is comparable to the amount of untreated sewage currentlyix emptying into the Arm.
[…] The Ecology Action Centre, we have been on this – this is a brochure we put out in 1989 promoting the use of conservation techniques and educating the public on household contaminants and asking people to get involved in the process including the Fournier Task Force hearings.
I wish at the time I would have known about alternative technologies. I did not.
Here you see the Arm on this side and I have got a picture of that sewage boil that was referred to earlier.
Here it is and essentially that, as far as I can see, is not going to change.
So for $400 million we have a very little change in the Northwest Arm and the sewage that is going in therex […] There is little comfort in the fact that sewage will be nominally treated and chlorinated. Now a constructed wetlands at one sixth of the cost will yield effluent approaching tertiary level and further it will do so without disruption to the Northwest Arm.
The proceedings began with a discussion of sustainability. What I am arguing here is that a sustainable long range plan of wastewater management is needed. The plan should include a program to remove toxics at source; a constructed wetlands to the sewage of Mainland South only in Mainland South.
Such a plan might determine for example that with those controls in place such as the removal of toxics, screening and tertiary treatment at combined sewer overflows would be adequate until small manageable pipelines are in place. Such manageable pipelines would allow communities to introduce higher treatment levels.xi On the other hand, if it is decided to go with a single plant, I think that the first thing we do is abandoned the OFS technology, compost the sludge, use ultraviolet light as a disinfectant which is currently used in about 750 places in the States. It is less expensive, faster acting and safer for the environment and the operators than chlorine.
And we also would recommend that the plant be moved to industrial or commercial areas at sea level in Mainland Halifax.xii
Barry Diamond, Director of Parks and Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, and Brian Kinsman, Planner, DNR.
Mr. Diamond: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Panel, ladies and gentlemen.
I will begin by introducing the two of us who are at the table. I am Barry Diamond, Director of Parks and Recreation for the Department of Natural Resources, and I am joined by Brian Kinsman who is a planner within our division.
I would like to begin by explaining that we are responding on fairly short notice to a request to provide information on the provincial park proposal for McNabs Island and to address the question of the real or perceived conflicts which may result from the construction of a sewage treatment plant there. And our presentation will focus on the value of McNabs as a quality provincial park resources and then the effects of the proposed treatment plant, the effects that the treatment plant may have on the value of McNabs as parkland.
I would like to begin by illustrating that the value of the McNabs Island as parkland as long been recognized in that the province has made a considerable commitment to its protect and management as a park.xiii
To illustrate, the involvement of the province in this island began in 1974 with the acquisition of some five hundred and forty-six (546) acres of land. In 1975 it was designated as regional park under the Halifax-Dartmouth Metropolitan Regional Plan.
In 1983 the responsibility to acquire, develop and manage McNabs Island was assigned to then the Department of Lands and Forest, and in 1985 a preliminary management concept for McNabs, Lawlors, and Devils Island, which was aimed at guiding them, the management and protection of the natural and cultural attributes of those islands, was prepared within our department.
In 1989 the province identified McNabs Island as a priority i[n] Polic[y] No. 9 entitled “Our Natural Heritage Awareness and Access. In 1991 the Department of Lands and Forests was in the process of initiating a public consultation and planning process when McNabs Island was identified as the preferred site for the sewage treatmentxiv plant and the planning process for the park was deferred pending the outcome of the environmental assessment.
Over the years the department has acquired land on the island to consolidate a base for park purposes, and to date approximately a million dollars ($1 million) has been committed to land consolidation.
We presently administer something in the order of six-hundred (600) acres on the island which is roughly sixty-two (62) per cent of the land base there, and we continue to acquire lands.
The Department of Natural Resources is currently negotiating for the transfer of federally-held lands to the Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of creating a park.
And there has been an ongoing presence by the department on the island over the past several years and it is the only parkland for which we have a full-time year-round caretaker.
Now to proceed with the description of the park values, I am going to ask Brian Kinsman to presentxv that as well as to outline the thoughts that were prepared and presented in the Preliminary Management Plan.
Mr. [Brian] Kinsman: Madam Chairman, members of the Panel:
McNabs Island is a very unique, very outstanding and irreplaceable provincial park reserve. The combination of its rich diversity of natural and cultural heritage resources, the high quality of recreational opportunities that it offers, and its close proximity to over one third of Nova Scotians, makes it one of the most significant provincial park areas in all of Nova Scotia.xvi And I would just like to point out that in dealing with a complex project such as we are discussing today, we are often confronted by the NIMBY, “not in my back yard” scenario. And I would like to point out that McNabs Island is not in anyone’s backyard; rather, it is on the front doorstep of everyone who lives in Metro.
[…] McNabs Island has provided a scenic and historic backdrop for the lives of Metro area residents for well over two hundred (200) years.
The island’s strategic location was used by military to guard the harbour; its fertile soils helped to feed the early settlers; and its beaches, scenery and open fields have attracted local residents for leisure time pursuits since the early 1700s. The island’s natural history resources include those natural features and processes that merit protection, conservation and explanation. Together these create the biophysical andxvii aesthetic setting that gives the island its underlying character and value.
In terms of bedrock – and I don’t have my pointer with me – in terms of bedrock, for example, McNab’s Island is underlain primarily by two hundred (200) [assume this should be 200 million?] year old Halifax slates, mostly this area (indicating), the exception being the Goldenville quartzites. And these, this bedrock traces its origins to an early African continent.
Deposited on top of the bedrock is a series of drumlins illustrated in red on the map.
Theses drumlins support a mixed forest of spruce, fir and red maple, yellow birch and beech. The low areas between the drumlins tend to be imperfectly drained and support a forest of balsam fir, black spruce, alders and red maple. McNab’s Island possesses numerous distinct coastal unforested and forested habitats, each supporting a particular flora and fauna of interest.xviii […]
Birds are an excellent indicator if the variety and condition of habitats on McNabs Island. Over a hundred and fifty (150) species have been identified on and around the island. And one of the most notable feature’s of the island’s bird life is the high concentration of nesting osprey here and at Lawlors Island, believed to be one of the highest concentrations in eastern North America.
These natural history resources which I have only touched on here provide an opportunity to understand the geologic, coastal, geomorphic and glacial history and processes that have combined to shape both the island and Halifax Harbour. Although situated in the midst of one of Nova Scotia’s largest and urban industrial complexes, the island provides an opportunity to appreciate and enjoy a variety of flora and fauna in a natural setting. xix
McNabs Island is equally rich in historic resources and offers excellent opportunity to understand the province’s cultural history. These distinctive resources require protect for interpretation, education and research.
Important historic features on McNabs Island which are still visible include the foundations of several houses built by early settlers, an Indian [Aboriginal] shell miden, two cemeteries – one of which contains the remains of many of the island’s early settlers; another one which is a mass grave for cholera victims – remains of a turn-of-the-century picnic ground and a soda pop factor[y], and remnants of a once extensive Victorian garden.
Numerous military sites also remain, including Fort Ives, Fort Hugonin [sic], Fort McNab, a national historic site, and Strawberry Battery. Other features such as the original McNab house, a Marttello Tower, the main cholera burying grounds and Gibbets where numerous sailors once dangled in the breeze, have long since disappeared. But one of the mostxx interesting aspects of McNabs Island’s cultural heritage is the vast amount of material, including maps, military plans, paintings and sketches, photographs, written accounts, and artifacts, which provide invaluable information from which to interpret the islands historical significance.
The island’s rich and colourful history include tales of lost gold mines, buried treasure and sea monsters, and have also provided the setting for at least two (2) novels, including the popular Hangman’s Beach by Thomas R[a]d[a]ll. These historic resources are important to Nova Scotians and interesting to park visitors. Their careful protection and controlled public utilization is fundamental to the management of McNabs Island as a provincial park. The recreational resources of McNabs Island are of sufficient quality and quantity to contribute significantly in meeting the demands for outdoor recreation in the Metro area.xxi
[…] In the latter years of the nineteenth century, for example, McNabs Island was the place to be during the summer months. And this is an illustrated picture (indicating) that appeared in the Canadian illustrated news of 1873 just showing one of the many large parties that were held on McNabs Island. More recently a private ferry service has operated to McNabs Island since the early 1980s, and in 1991 an estimated thirty to thirty-five thousand (30-35, 000) people visited the island.
The island’s natural environments provide the setting for a wide variety of low intensity outdoor recreation pursuits.xxii […]
A preliminary management concept was prepared in 1985 to provide interim management guidelines until a park management plan could be completed. It is anticipated that through the park planning process yet to start the preliminary concept will be revised as a result of public review and comment and as well as due to further research by Parks Division.xxiii
[…]
Within this framework particular attention is directed to establishing interpretive and education opportunities.xxiv
[…] A park component plan for the north end of the island include historic Fort Ives, Fort Hugonin, and outdoor education centre, an overnight hostel, a campground, public boat tie-uo, and the park manager’s residence, and a picnic area. A system of trails and interpretive walks would provide public access to many parts of the island. A system of trails and interpretive walks would provide public access to many parts of the island. And although preliminary in nature, this management concept provides a framework from which to evaluate the possible effects of a sewage treatment plant at Ives Cove on the value of McNabs Island as a provincial park.xxv
Barry Diamond, Director of Parks and Recreation, Department of Natural Resources
The Halifax Harbour Task Force final report recommended that site selection criteria include the requirement that the land had to be vacant and obviously underused. […] In recommending McNabs Island as the preferred site for the STP, the inference is that the island is vacant or underutilized, and that of course is a view with which we disagree. […] In the case of McNab’s Island this relatively undeveloped open space in the midst of anxxvi otherwise highly urban industrial landscape is one of the principal assets or attractions of the island. Throughout the preliminary management concept, for example, numerous references are found which underscore the importan[ce] of the island’s nature, environments and emphasize the need to protect and enhance them. […]
However, it seems that the very attributes which make McNabs Island so desirable as a provincial park – the fact that it is underdeveloped, it contains a rich diversity of natural habitats, the quality of natural environments and open spaces – make it also desirable for other uses such as the sewage treatment plant. In our view McNabs Island is a very provincially significant provincial park opportunity thatxxvii is in the early stages of a management and development process that, when completed, will see it make a very substantial contribution to the quality of life in the Metro area and to the area’s economic infrastructure. In correspondence we have expressed the view that the proposal to site the sewage treatment plant at McNabs Island is fundamentally incompatible with the proposed management of the island as a major provincial park with emphasis on natural and cultural resources found there.
Although mitigation efforts may reduce the impacts of the treatment plant on the value of McNabs Island as a provincial park, it is our opinion that no amount of mitigation can hide the fact that it is there. And it is our view that the presence of the treatment plant will devalue the island as parkland significantly because it will irreversibly alter the public perception of the island as a high quality park.
In responding to the environmental assessment report released in August of ’92 the Department raised several concerns regarding the potential impact on McNabs Island as a provincial park,xxviii and these concerns related to, first, the possible impact a single, large diffuser would have on the marine water quality and proximity to the island; the visual impact of the sewage treatment plant on views from the north of the island towards Halifax-Dartmouth; and on views looking toward the island from the mainland; and on views of the island from the Harbour as one passes Ives Point en route to or from the island.
We express concerns about the noise generated by the construction and operation of a treatment plant, concerns about objectionable odours produced by the operation of the plant, concerns regarding the impact on recreation and tourism potential of the island, and concerns about destruction of archeological resources, concerns about the possible impacts on the sizable osprey population on McNabs and nearby Lawlors Islands, and ongoing environmental monitoring. We express concerns about the need for that.
[…] But I would like to add that in the event that the treatment facility is built at Ives Cove that there is a need for axxix through environmental monitoring program to be put in place to ensure that the facility operates as well as the environmental assessment report predicts.
The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Diamond. HHCI, any comment you wish to make? (Potential to continue below with response, but end here for now, given the focus I have given earlier participants.
***
Rob Grant [HHCI response to DNR]: Several questions if we may, Madam Chair. […]xxx Mr. Diamond indicated in closing remarks views – or perhaps it is some of the documents submitted to the Panel that the development of the sewage treatment plant is fundamentally incompatible with the development of a park, and as I hear him today he doesn’t seem to have deviated in any way from that position. In his submission today he has raised a number of concerns, but as I hear him he doesn’t take issue with the environmental assessment in terms of its predicted biophysical impacts on McNabs. So that his submission as I hear it is really focusing on perception and the concern that perception will have on the park.
If I may ask him to comment, Madam Chair, on the suggestion that the use of McNabs as a park at present is inhibited by public perception regarding the quality of water surrounding McNabs Island and the difficulty of gaining access to McNabs.
The Chairperson: Can you respond Mr. Diamond?
Mr. Diamond: Thank you, Madam Chair.xxxi
I would like to point out I guess to start that McNabs Island
