Federal-Provincial Assessment Review Panel for the Halifax-Dartmouth Wastewater Management System Volume 10, 29 March 1993 (Halifax: Halifax Harbour Cleanup Inc. 1994)
[Atlantic Ballroom, Halifax Hilton, Halifax, NS, 29 March 1993, Evening Session]
Opening Remarks
Terry Simms, Senior Engineer, HHCI
Alan Ruffman, Coordinator, Metro Coalition for Harbour Cleanup (MCHC) (This is listed as # 2 on my participants list, includes others, e.g. Candace Malcolm):
The Metro Coalition for Harbour Cleanup was granted certain moneys from the Green Plan to be able to assist us to respond to the Environmental Assessment report. […] If I may refer to what is an absolutely key graph; this a graph that appears in the Fournier Task Force, and Option One, is in fact, a five plant scenario. Option Two is a two plant scenario, discharging in the Inner Harbour, and the one that is absolutely key is a one plant scenario discharging into what is called “Box D,” which is just outside of the Inner Harbour, opposite the lighthouse at McNabs.i
I was on the Fournier Task Force; I joined it halfway through, replacing Peter Pelham who had some medical absences, and as Miss Griffiths will recall, a session in shreds. We had a presentation by Mike Murphy of UMA, and this was the graph that absolutely galvanized Bob Fournier. He took one look at this it is billions of dollars, and its life cycle cost over a sixty year life. […] Bob Fournier saw that the graph came down to a single plant, and he decided at that point primary, single plant, that is what makes sense, and you could see it happen in the room.
And after that, Bob was very forceful; the Fournier Task Force did not argue very much about whether it should be primary or secondary, or whether it should be a single plant or more than one plant. This is the graph that decided it right there. It never went any further, Terry. We stayed there and the rest of us were not going to argue.ii There are other graphs, a similar thing here you see; this is the graph that shows the operating and maintenance costs and this also appears in the so-called Harbour Fournier Task Force Report, showing the same option, somewhat cheaper operating and maintenance costs – a single plant. […] You remember then the HHCI was formed, it began a site selection, and these were the graphs that they presented […] Capital cost showed the Rail Yard Site, or we might call it the Halifax Pier Site, significantly cheaper than a McNabs site, and this graph seems to belie what we just heard tonight. I think it is probably very, very real.iii
Again, in the site selection, a graph that is truncated; it only starts here at about three — thirty – three million dollars in terms of operation and maintenance cost, and the suggestion was that a McNabs site would cost about 3 point two. Read the Peat Marwick report; now the figure has climbed up significantly and it actually goes off the top of that graph now, The annual operating costs, because it is on an island, because it is Oil From Sludge, a number of factors are driving up the operating costs significantly.
The Rail Yards will probably be significantly cheaper, and that is really looks like if you start at zero. In fact, McNabs and the Rail Yards are really rather close. It does not look nearly as outstandingly different when you look at the graph in the true scale.iv
[…]
John Zuck was hired to look at possible locations, and we as the Fournier Task Force, made a real error in giving John or allowing John to not control elevation. You will see a number of sites here in back of Purcells Cove are above 125 feet above sea level. All the site in the back, away from the shoreline of Eastern Passage, Shearwater, Woodside, were as much as 220 feet above sea level. Elevation was not considered by the Fournier Task Force as an important criteria. We goofed.v
[…] [T]he other one that was really in the running, and one might even argue was pre-selected, was the possibility of an Ives Cove, and the other design they gave you was perhaps Ives Knoll.vi
[…] Another proposal was put forward by the Harbour Cleanup Committee of Ecology Action Centre, using unused land at the south end of the Imperial Oil refinery – virtually totally unused land except for the one railway that goes through it. This got one single line of reply from HHCI.
Mr. Ruffman: So when we started looking at this – the reason the Coalition started looking at this, there were – three (3) members of the Coalition are concerned about the site proposed for the end of McNabs Island. We got a real benefit because we began to realize that of you do not have the site on McNabs Island, you can save some money.
We looked at five (5) possible sites, decided to do a kit of work on four (4), namely the Fior site at the south end, and the so-called Sandy Cove site in front of the Nova Scotia Hospital, the parking lot at DND, that huge parking lot for 4,000 cars and then what we call the Halifax Pier site, one pier.
[…] This of course involves using some alternative technology. You heard Richard Palczynski talk about rotating biological contractors; they can be used at a couple of sites, cyclic activated sludge in a couple of places and multi-story sites in (2) – multi-story plants in two (2) of the sites.
One of those sites – one if the ways of saving money is look at what you do with four (4) per cent if the sewage that is coming from Mainland South at twenty (20) per cent of the cost. This is the principle I have been using. The pumping station right here, that is City owned land.
Indeed, there is a huge amount of Crown land near by. This is Lakshman who we have heard, myself looking at the area and at the outfall – not the outfall but the CSO that works there with the toilet paper and the area is a beautiful area, very very – sensitive area. One that we have recommended probably could handle an engineered wetland.vii […] So when you look at Mainland South sewage, this an another one of our reports, but in fact an engineered wetland is about six million dollars. A pipe to bring all the sewage across all the way across from here, all the way over to downtown or at least to the arm, something like thirty-four million; the difference is twenty-nine million.
This is a revised version of the table, Madam Chair, we will put it in for your considerations.
We have assumed throughout that the outfall should be where the Fournier Task Force recommended it very clearly in the inner harbour. We [MCHC?] will be talking about that Thursday night as opposed to out here on the edge of the inner Harbour. We, in all our diagrams, suggest inner Harbour. So here is one suggestion of a plant that might be at the Fior site with the outfall. What we have done, this is the proposed island, the proposed plant area and we have, in effect, taken the plant area and this is not a sophisticated lay-out or it is not or it is not a sophisticated design but in fact it can fit virtually totally onshore protected by the berm along the highway of the Eastern Passage; not a bad idea perhaps.
[…]
Another possibility is Sandy Cove, the area in front of the [Nova Scotia] Hospital. It is – the plant might fit like this. We are not suggesting specific designs. And again, this is the area looking at the end of Cuisak street and quite a significant area presently under used land where the Hospital is dumping earth. […] Third site is the parking lot in DND. This is the one that […] there is slightly less area than the – required on McNabs Island but we would go to a stack plant,
[…] Fourth site, is a pier in the south end. It could fit nicely on either of those piers over in this unused or relatively unused area and other parts of the pier.viii
[…]
So you save money if you do not go out to the Island. These are our estimates or our consultants’ estimates of the kinds of savings that can be realized by not building a plant on the Island […] you have got a saving of something like fifty-nine million dollars. On a four hundred million project, three ninety-eight, that is a significant saving and should be looked at.ix
Jim Stoneman, Vice-President, Oceanex Inc. (Halifax Shipping Association):
Thank you, Madam Chair, Panel, ladies and gentlemen. By way of introduction, my name is Jim Stoneman. I am the Vice-President of Oceanex Inc., a container/railroad shipping company operating from the Halterm Container Terminal in Halifax.
Oceanex also represents several shipping lines utilizing the Ocean Terminal’s facilities of the Halifax port Corporation. […] With me tonight is Mr. Gary Wendt who is a Director of the Halifax Shipping Association and will also be available to answer any questions you may have.
The Halifax Shipping Association is am organization representing shipping lines, ship agents, stevedoring companies, terminal operators and other user and stakeholders involved in the shipping trade at the port of Halifax.
The members of the Halifax Shipping Association wish to register their strong disapproval to any consideration of the so-called Halifax Rail Yards as a potential site for the proposed sewage treatment plant and the proposed diffuser site.x […] Frankly, we were astonished that any serious consideration is still being given to this site. The port of Halifax and its users are involved in a highly competitive struggle with other ports and services, especially those along the U.S. East Coast.
The last couple of years have been difficult for the port of Halifax as shipping lines have rationalized services and explored alternatives via other North American gateways. However, effort by many of the port’s stakeholders have recently helped improve the port’s competitiveness, including actions by the port Corporation, terminal operators, CN Rail, the City of Halifax, and the Province of Nova Scotia. This collective initiative is now beginning to show results, with, for example, container traffic handled at the point up to 11.7 per cent for the first two months of 1993.
However, locating the sewage treatment plant at the Halifax Rail Yards would strike a serious blow to this recovery effort and likely remove the port of Halifax’s ability to remain a competitive option to the other east coast ports like New York and Montreal.xi
An economic impact study completed in 1990 showed that the port of Halifax generated some 8700 jobs and had a direct total expenditure impact of over $350 million and an income impact of some $282 million.
However, ensuring that Nova Scotia continues to a have a diversified and competitive world class port is important not just for the significant local economic impact generated, but also because of the frequency and diversity of ocean shipping services it offers Nova Scotian manufactures in accessing overseas markets. As well, traffic generated by the port is critical to the continued viability of the rail mainline in Eastern Canada. The area encompassed by the Halifax Rail yards include critically important port working space for which there exists no feasible alternatives for the relocation of these facilities.
The impact of using this site for the sewage treatment plant would be traumatic to the users of Halifax as it is in the heart of the port encompassing the complete spectrum of port activity. The site is crucial to container, break bulk and project cargo traffic and cruise ship activity, as well as the Halifax grain elevator and the Dover flour mill. It is also the most favourable site for future expansion.
In our earlier correspondence we also expressed concern over the proposed diffuser site which will interfere with the port’s anchorage areas. The anchorage that must be maintained in their locations so that the port of Halifax continues to provide a safe anchorage for the regular port as a port of refuge in times of bad weather. The deep channels west of McNabs Island is the proper location for the diffuser.xii
In closing we wish to emphasize that the port and its users have been experiencing extremely difficult times as of late and a decision to place a sewage treatment in a viable and active cargo-handling area would have serious negative repercussions for trade and transportation throughout the Province of Nova Scotia. The Halifax Shipping Association appreciates this opportunity to present its views on an issue which is of critical important [sic] to the Port of Halifax and its users. Thank you.xiii
Susan MacEachern, Member, North Woodside Residents Association:
Hi. I am Susan MacEachern. I am a member, a representative of the North Woodside Residents Association, and I would like to thank Patricia Murray for helping me to find a place to speak this evening. It has been somewhat difficult to find times for individuals to speak. It seems that there is sort of a domination by certain interest groups.
Okay. I am here as a representative of the North Woodside Residents Association, and although we feel that the validity and justice of our protestation of the Sandy Cove site is obvious, we also feel disturbed by the relentless efforts of a coalition of special interest groups who seem to have dominated the time of the Panel with essentially the same message: “Anywhere but on McNabs Island.”
It is interesting, of course, to note that this “anywhere” does not include where they live.
As a reside of North Woodside, whose home would in fact be within the buffer zone of the sewage treatment plant, if the plant were to be built at Sandy Cove, I feel I have a right to speak.
I also want the Panel to very seriously consider the real circumstances of these hearings for North Woodside residents: specifically, that we had absolutely no knowledge of the consideration of Sandy Cove as a site until less than one week before the hearings started.
The [Metro] Coalition [for Harbour Cleanup] had months, money and fulltime funded workers to prepare what had amounted to a domination of the hearings. In fact, the day that I found out aboutxiv the new site considerations I called Patricia Murray and was told that my day of choice, March 17th, Saturday in Dartmouth, which is where I reside, was already full. I am stating these facts in detail because I want the words of people who have had very little time to prepare and to react to what to most of them is so unthinkable. […]
What? They are think of building a sewage treatment plant on a hospital grounds in a well-used park next to the school yard?
Yes, it is an outrageous proposition and one that would make a good research project for a student involved in planning, sociology or the lobbying power of special interest groups.
That this site should be considered is shocking. That it might even be chosen and, if chosen, the possibility that there may not be an environmental assessment would prove to be an historic municipal sleight of hand. As I understand it, you have the potential here to place sewage treatment plant in an area with absolutely no public hearings of residents in that area. It is significant to me that I have to address this issue in Halifax [Halifax Hilton].
So that is my preamble, and I would like to follow with three basic points:
First, I think we must clearly identify the ideological position that favours the preservation of a pristine island over a highly used residential parkland.
Although people have tried to discredit North Woodside Park, they really cannot do this successfully. This park is used. It is part of a school yard. The beach is appreciated as a natural area and it enhances the lives of the many users in Dartmouth. This area is part of a natural environment that is partly maintained and partly wild. It gives access to a beautiful view, fresh air, natural light and a large area of green that we all watch sprout leaves in the spring and then we watch as these leaves turn colour in the fall. Our children pick the leaves and save them in books. They find snakes in the grass and butterflies and hummingbirds in the summer. They watch the waves on the beach and go fishing off the wharf. In short, this area gives an experience of nature on a day-to-day basis.
It provides an example of a natural cycle, exposure to the elements and the ability to learn a respect for something beautiful. And this beautiful thing is not an idea on an island beyond their reach. It is not a concept of untouched nature that they may never even get to visit. This natural experience is within reach; it is on their doorstep.xv
Isn’t this one of the reasons for the existence of city parks? Aren’t green areas supposed to generate an appreciation and connectiveness to nature.
Isn’t that what we are trying to teach our children?
One of North Woodside’s teaching experiences is the yearly neighbourhood cleanup were residents get together with garbage bags, gloves and clean.
For the last two years we have done this and we have made gains with the City of Dartmouth for maintenance of this park area.
Ironically, when we first asked the Coast Guard to help us by picking up our collection of beach garbage by boat they said they didn’t know what time they could be there because they had to also pick up garbage from the people that were gathering at McNabs Island. This was later proved to be no problem. Because it was found that no one went on Dartmouth Cleanup Day to pick up garbage on McNabs Island after.xvi
Second, it is important, I think, to indicate some contradictions around some positions taken by the detractors of the McNabs Island site. The establishment and the maintaining of neighbourhoods has been part of Alan Ruffman’s agenda but it seems that it is no longer a priority for him.
In today’s newspaper, a resident of Chadwick Street, Colin Stewart, has stated that he can get another house but he can’t get another park. In this all-too-transparent statement what he is really saying is that North Woodside would not be a place that he will choose to live when the sewage treatment plant is built there. He intends to move out. Does he also have in place a method by which others could move out? His home is as far away as you could get from the site and still be in North Woodside, yet he will get a new house. It is no wonder that he is not a member of the North Woodside Residents Association with that attitude. Not much of a community of interest there [sic].xvii […] The hypocrisy of the NOT IN MY BACKYARD attitude that people are accused of having if they protest the Sandy Cove site is pretty clearly indicated here.
Third, except for a well-funded and extremely vocal minority, there seems to be a fair bit of complacency about the selection of McNabs Island or Ives Island as a sewage treatment site. It is difficult for any group of people to band together and say that they want a sewage treatment plant in any particular area. We all know that in spite of the best designs and the best intensions by engineers and designers that these plants have not proven to be people friendly.xviii
[…]
[T]o me personally, Ives Island would be a better site than any of the other options proposed. If the plant is going to be as community friendly as the opponents of the Ives’ site contend, then let’s place it on Ives Island. It should not interfere with the “world class park.”
The sewage treatment plant may make the park more accessible. And I think this is significant. […] I feel that this would really be world class to have a successful park and a sewage treatment plant. I have been told so many other places succeed in this.
But let us also look at the worst-case scenario: if the sewage plant runs out of money. It is significantly less resident-friendly, uglier, bigger and smellier. Who has a right to put this in a residential neighbourhood? Who has a right to destroy someone else’s neighbourhood?xix
While clearly no one wants on McNabs Island either, I think a McNabs site is in scale with the project, and if the worst-case scenario takes place on McNabs Island neighbourhood schools and hospitals will not be adversely affected. If the cost overrun is such a concern, why not build the plant on the island [McNabs] itself and not build a separate [Ives] island?
I have a number of questions that I would like to specifically address to the Panel.
How, and by whom specifically, was the Panel convinced to add three sites to the proposal after the public hearings had taken place?xx What efforts were taken to inform the general public of the addition of these three sites so that you could receive a clear indication of the public’s wishes?
HHCI actually sent a letter to residents of Cuisack Street about a week before the hearings, and that was the only way that residents of North Woodside had any idea at all that Sandy Cove is on the books at all.
I mean so there are just, you know, there is no real feedback that you have received from these people because they just don’t know, unless they have read the newspaper in the last few days, It is hardly enough time to mobilize a group of people to respond on this scale. […] To what extend [sic] is land value taken into account in the assessment of these sites, and the appropriation of homes been considered?
And finally, is the placement of a sewage treatment plant in a residential area on that you find in any way viable?xxi
[…] I guess as a private citizen I am kind of surprised that after all of the public hearings and all of the talk and the forums that have been provided for the discussion of this – and although I haven’t been personally an expert on this, I have certainly tried to keep up I was very surprised to find that a site like my home, for example, could be put under consideration without any knowledge of the residents of my area.
And I am wondering, who are the people that have the power to convince a Panel to consider three sites without any of the forum that all of the other sites have had in the history of this process.xxii
The Chairperson [Shirley Conover]: I think there are a couple of things to give you as the history of this.
When the original guidelines were written and put out for public review and consultation and so on back in 1991, HHCI at that time was instructed to consider alternative sites and evaluate them, and was also directed to give serious consideration to more than one site and make the whole site evaluation thing quite transparent.
When their [HHCI’s] document was submitted in August of ’92 and put out for public review, universally in the comments that came back from the public and the technical reviews as well as the Panel themselves, there was very strong concern expressed in fact that kind of transparent evaluation of sites was not included; that in fact the decision on the single site had been made very, very early[.] […] So that they did not go through that full analysis and evaluation which had been expected.xxiii
The panel released its deficiency statement and included in the deficiency statement – this was November 3rd of 1992 – that we were still looking for the evaluation of the candidate sites or possible candidate site, and it was recognized by that time the importance of the sea level sites and so HHCI was requested to include that.
When we received their first – their Supplement No. 1 the middle of January, that again was given to the Panel, to the technical reviewers, to the general public, which included the intervenor groups. And the response that the Panel received to that was due on the 15th of February, and again if you review the public input on all of the correspondence we received – and please do remember that all of this information is on the public record and was available to anyone to go and review at any time in the various information centres around the Metropolitan area. […] Now this is a public review process. When the Panel continues to get messages that consistently, that strongly, we made the decision at that point that it really was important for HHCI and the credibility of the process that they go through the evaluation of some additional sea level sites. The one that had been brought forward were the three sites that they did look at in the their Supplement No. 3. These were suggested in the letter that the Panel sent back to them which was dated, I believe —xxiv–
Mr: Ruffman: February 17th.
The Chairperson: February 17th, thank you.
HHCI said that yes, they could produce the supplement by March the 15th which was the absolute deadline which would have allowed us to schedule the hearings for the period of time that we have done, and in fact they did get it in.
But there was nothing secret about that process. As I say, all of this has been on the public record not only with the Panel’s Secretariat but in the five (5) information locations around the Metro area, and it was the Panel’s direction as a result of all of the public input – it was the Panel’s direction to HHCI to please review at least three sea level sites. If HHCI had chosen, if they has been able to think of another site they certainly could have added that to the list. But it is the result of not just the input of intervenor groups; but, as I say, if you review that correspondence you will see that this a very strong, consistent thread the whole way through of we want to see real evaluations of alternative sites.
Ms. MacEachern: I am not trying to suggest that there was some sort of secret agenda. What I am trying to indicate is that this – there was a large of this process which has been quite public and documents have been quite available. You can purchase them at the government bookstore. […] I think that these new site have, you know, been particularly unavailable until in fact March 15th to the public.xxv
Perhaps people that have been working on this project as part of their ongoing regular job have been very aware of it, but I think the general public has not; and I think that really needs to be very seriously considered by the Panel – that this is to many people is a very big secret; that the site such as Sandy Cove is being, you know, given serious consideration and that a drawing actually exists with a sewage treatment plant on the hospital grounds, taking over half the Cove. I think that is a very big shock. […]
So the efforts to inform the general public, from what I can assess HHCI is the only body that attempted to inform the general public other than the general public other than the news media who have been reporting on these meetings. So that people that otherwise – you know, even if they were somewhat, you know, informed and kept up on harbour cleanup really have not had any indication through the Panel’s efforts that would indicate to them that new sites are on the boards.xxvi
The Chairperson: There would not have been perhaps a direct mailing to individual households.
Ms. MacEachern: Well, think people would make time and effort to go to the Dartmouth Library to look that up if they thought something that deeply concerned them was being considered there, and I think a lot of people with, you know, regular, full-time jobs and families have very little time to maintain an part-time job on this project, in addition to their regular life. […] We have also had a number of other issues in our neighbourhood, not the least of which is the closing of the North Woodside School, which has taken a tremendous amount of energy. So this is sort of yet another kind of community effort.
The Chairperson: Yes. No, I can sympathize —
Ms. MacEachern: So, in other words, if HHCI hadn’t told us it is very unlikely that any members of the North Woodside Community would be attending these hearings until we saw newspaper reports that told us and mentioned specifically Sandy Cove. And I think the Panel really needs to recognize that this is a secret to North Woodside residents.xxvii
[…]
Well, it might have been useful to know that our site was being so seriously considered by the opponents of the McNabs Island site. Also land value is another one of my questions.xxviii
[…]
Mr. Calda: If land were acquired from any owner we would certainly compensate the owners for the owners for the land or home in question, but normally outside a community siting agreement we would not build into the equation any decrease of values as a result of our presence.
[…]
Ms. MacEachern: I guess my final question is: is the placement of a sewage treatment plant in a residential area one that the Panel finds in any way viable? I mean clearly there is a drawing that exists, but I guess I can’t believe an environmental assessment is one that actually looks at hospital grounds, schools, parks and residential parklands as a place for a sewage treatment plant. But am I wrong? This is actually a real possibility in Sandy Cove?
The Chairperson: The whole question of siting and siting criteria is something that does have to be very carefully weighed and thought through and sit[e]s compared. The matrix approach which has been taken by HHCI and basically the same approach used by the Coalition is an attempt to do – to weigh the costs and benefits. […] [T]here certainly are many examples of sewage treatment plants in fact as a part of city neighbourhoods, There are some that are actually camouflaged within greenbelts or parklands — xxix
Ms. MacEachern: Yes, but let’s not pretend that is the one we are going to build, because I think that all those, you know, wonderful best-case scenarios of golf course on top of sewage treatment plants is not what we have the money to build and that is not what we are building.
The Chairperson: I think the – you know, I think we have certainly heard loud and clear from the Dartmouth residents, and especially those in the Sandy Cove area that there is a sense that they feel that they feel that Sandy Cove is a particularly is a very unsuitable site. It is not something that the Panel can pass judgement on at this point in time.
[…]
The Chairperson: We did, of course, hold hearings in Dartmouth —
Ms. MacEachern: At the very first day that they were announced I tried to get a place and couldn’t, and I think that that also – the Dartmouth hearings has perhaps been a focus of particular groups’ presentations.
The Chairperson: I am not certain that that is the situation. In any event, I think the Panel has heard very effectively from the Dartmouth community.xxx
Ms. MacEachern: Enough already? Is that what you are saying?
The Chairperson: No, no. As I say, one of the great advantages of what that I saw [sic] to the group of presents we had tonight is that the very broad spectrum of Metropolitan concerns and issues is well represented, and for this reason we are certainly grateful to have heard from the Dartmouth residents.
Port Corporation/Coast Guard [Volume 10]
Mr. Ward: Madam Chair, my name is Martin Ward; I am a lawyer here on behalf of the Halifax Port Corporation and the Canadian Coast Guard. It is not my intent tp turn this into a legal proceeding, but merely to introduce the individuals who are going to make presentations to you tonight. They are, in fact, two separate presentations.
With me tonight is Captain Claude Ball. Who is the Senior Vice- President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer of the Halifax Port Corporation.
Also, Captain Randy Sherman, who is the Harbourmaster here at the Port of Halifax.
And Mr. Don Carter, who is the Director of Engineering for the Halifax Port Corporation.
[…] Mr. Carter will deal with the question of site selection and
Captain Sherman will deal with the question of the location of the diffuser.xxxi
Don Carter, Director of Engineering for the Halifax Port Corporation:
Madam Chair, members of the Panel, ladies and gentlemen, the siting of the proposed sewage treatment plant in the area of Port property, called by some the “Halifax Rail Yards” would be a dire blow to the Port of Halifax and its attendant shipping community. On behalf of the Halifax Port Corporation, I would like to briefly outline the importance to the Port Corporation of the site selected as number two for the proposed sewage treatment plant of the Halifax Harbour Cleanup Project.
As I understand it, initially the site, called the “Halifax Rail Yards” was proposed and evaluated during the Halifax Harbour Task Force study headed by Mr. Fournier. After the evaluation was performed, the site was deemed to be the next best site to Ives Point, and this was at least partially based on the supposition that the property was under-utilized. Referring to the overhead screen, you can see the area in question, and the fact that the site is not on CN property at all, but encompasses only Port Corporation property. It is the site on the left-hand side of the overhead there.
Allow me to digress for a moment and elaborate on the actual role of the Halifax Port corporation with regards to Halifax Harbour. We are a federal crown corporation established by the Canada Ports Corporation Act, and succeeding the earlier established National Harbours Board. The corporation is the custodian of federal land, waters and facilities lying thereon within the bounds of the Harbour, Bedford Basin and the Northwest Arm. Included in our property are the working terminals known as Ocean Terminal, Richmond Terminals and Fairview Cove. A former wharf side on the Dartmouth side of the Harbour, not of the Halifax-Dartmouth ferry terminal, is also Halifax Port Corporation property.
We lease the Port facilities to the private sector, who are partners along with others in Canada to promote international trade and commerce from, of course, the marine end.
We play an integral part of the import and export trade involving Canada in the global marketplace.xxxii […]
We in Halifax are lucky insofar as shipping is concerned, in that we are close to the ocean and the Great Circle Route between Europe and North America, and we have a nice [ice?] free harbour with adequate depths of water for the biggest container and break-bulk ships afloat. […] [T]he Ocean Terminal site is the best of our best, and here you can find the sheltered layover berths, sheds and one container terminal, which are all requisite parts of a port which strives for success in pursuing Canadian world trade goals.
Having said the above, allow me note the corporation’s views on this so-called under-utilized area of our property. The site so selected and designated by some as the “Halifax Rail Yards” unfortunately falls right in the middle of the Halifax Port Corporation property on Ocean Terminals. […] It would also be the death knell to any future cruise ship business, which has developed substantially over the past few years. As well, it would create a transportation problem for trucking, and perhaps rail as well, for access to Halterm, the bustling terminal at the south end of Ocean Terminals. […]
If the treatment plant is built in Ocean Terminals, the grain and other bulk produce handled by the grain elevator complex is history. […] The economic impact on the marine transportation industry in this region would be horrendous[.] […] Shipping would disappear from Ocean Terminals, except along the sea wall, which has three berths, and at the container terminal.xxxiii
This area of the Halifax Port Corporation property is really the hub of the marine transportation system for the Harbour, and the siting of the sewage treatment plant anywhere un this area would be disastrous to the marine transportation interests in Halifax. In fact, in all of eastern Canada.xxxiv
Captain Randy Sherman: Madam Chairman, members of the Panel, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Halifax Port Corporation I wish to address the situation concerning the proposed location for the diffuser in the Harbour, and will demonstrate why it cannot be located at the site recommended by the Fournier Task Force, without having a considerable negative impact on the Port of Halifax.
[…]
The Harbour has eight designated anchorage areas within the Inner Harbour, which have been located in order to provide the safest positions to anchor large vessels.xxxv […] When anchoring a large vessel, the Pilot or Master will attempt to drop his anchor as close to the symbol position as possible[.] […] However, it is not always possible to accurately place the anchor, and once it is on the bottom, it will drag a certain distance as it digs in and sets. Not only is the anchor dragging, but a considerable length of chain, as well.xxxvi
[…] Since the diffusers project above the sea bed, they would be very vulnerable if entangled in the anchor here. Certainly, repairs and time out of service would be very costly.
The greatest risk is not from normal anchoring, but rather the risk involved if a ship drags her anchor during heavy weather, which in fact happens fairly frequently. Then, there is little control as to the direction; it being pretty much dependent on the wind and the drifting of the ship. Not only would the diffuser be destroyed if fouled. But also a very real possibility exists that the vessel itself would be endangered. If it was unable to clear itself from a diffuser; it may end up going aground while attempting to break free, with the resultant risk of pollution and heavy damage. In order to maintain its status as a world class port, these anchorages are vital. […] Last year, for instance, 212 commercial ships used the anchorages for a variety of reasons such as bunkering, refuge from storms, inspections and repairs. This does not include Naval or non-commercial vessels. Many of these are very large crude oil carriers awaiting a berth at the refinery.xxxvii
We cannot afford to lose any of these locations without it impacting adversely in the operation of the Port. The location of site three does not pose this sort of risk for shipping; that is the one to the west of Ives Island. […] Therefore, the site is the preferred one from HPC’s point of view. Any other proposal which would interfere with the anchorage or shipping is not acceptable. Thank you very much.xxxviii
***
Mr. Ward: Madam Chair, I have with me John Major, who is with the Canadian Coast Guard out of Dartmouth, and is going to present on the issue of the location of the diffuser and its effect on navigation within the Harbour.
Mr. [John] Major: […] Thank you, Madam Chair […] I can try and explain how the Coast Guard fits into this overall program, and essentially it relates to the administration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is the second oldest piece of legislation in Canada, superseded only by the British North America Act. […] [T]he legislation enabled the government of the day to control and regulate bridge construction to the advantage of navigation, because at that time, marine transport were really the highways of the country. […] The principal objective of the Act is of course to protect the public right to navigation, and case law has established that the public right to navigation remain paramount in considering the many uses of the waterway.xxxix
There are three important sub-objectives of the Act, and one is to ensure the Federal Government policies, regulations, directives and guidelines, which have a bearing on the administration of the Act, the Railway Safety Act and the National Energy Board Act are adhered to and to develop and maintain contacts with other federal government departments, provincial, municipal governments, utility companies, private industry, crown corporation, to promote cooperation and coordination in matters that affect the right to navigation.
And this latter sub-objective is probably the most difficult one to deal with, because experience has demonstrated that the use of the waterway is really a matter of compromise, particularly in regard to the authority to occupy the bed of the waterway is usually vested in the Provincial Government, and on occasion the Federal Government, and in so dealing with development applications, we must consider the degree to which we can tolerated interference to navigation. In consideration of the Harbour Cleanup project, those principles were applied with regard to the Ives Knoll or the Ives Cove treatment plant, and the location of the diffuser and has been indicated by Captain Sherman, the area that the diffuser is located is probably in one of the deepest portions of the Harbour, and certainly well below any potential impact that could felt by ships coming in and out of the Harbour. […] In reviewing the potential sites for the location of the plant, of course, we also took into consideration traffic in and out of Eastern Passage, where you have two significant oil refineries and of course a fairly active fishing industry in that area, and to that extent, because nature of those two types of vessels operating, there is a strong requirement to make sure that there is not conflict in the use of the waterway to enable both to operate and navigate successfully.xl
The Chairperson: Just for the general information of the public, the reason that the Halifax Harbour Task Force recommended the particular diffuser site that they did was following from a document called the “The Montreal Guidelines”; the Montreal Protocol,” which related to the disposal of land-derived pollutants in marine waters, and one of the tenets of the guidelines is that waste and pollution should be contained and handled within the area of the urban area or industrial area or whatever that generates them. In other words, that they should not be disposed of in such a way that they would be dispersed widely; in other words, a way of kicking it out of your own backyard instead of dealing with it in a responsible manner.
So that the Task Force, in fact, after considerable discussion as we understand it, opted for the containment strategy and that was the reason for their selecting, after very careful evaluation of oceanographic and bottom conditions, of recommending the site to the east of Georges Island.
So this makes this one of the important questions for the Panel, in that the alternative site is further. It is still in the inner Harbour, but it is a bit further out towards the mouth, and the question has arisen: if the Task Force’s strong recommendation that containment versus disposal be the option, and if we are, is that acceptable? As I say, these are important questions that the Panel is going to have to consider, and this is why we are extremely grateful to have the background on the reasons for this decision.xli
