Dr Shaun Peck's presentation to the CRD Environmental Sustainability Committee, Jan 25th, 2012.
I would firstly like to comment on the harbour report (Agenda item 7). I would like to see more emphasis on the outcomes to be achieved and how they will be measured. I wonder how many of these many processes described will be effective in achieving reductions in the contamination of the harbours.
For committee members interest Chapter 11 of the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan describes the Victoria and Esquimalt Harbors (I quote) as “the most polluted marine environments in the CRD. The harbour sediments contain high levels of metals and organic contaminants. Sediment contaminant levels in some areas have the potential to be acutely toxic to marine life and could pose a threat to human health if a fishery was allowed. Evidence of this is the closure of the commercial crab fishery in Victoria Harbour due to high dioxin levels in crab tissue. In addition, both harbours have experienced habitat loss and alteration, particularly in the highly urbanized areas.”
Prevention of further contamination levels is clearly what to-days report aims to achieve.
The Marine Monitoring report (agenda item 8) is welcomed. From a public health perspective I am glad that the results for testing for faecal coliform bacteria at the surface were well below levels established by the Canadian Recreational Water guidelines, indicating a low risk to human health.
The overall results from this report reiterate the fact that there is a minimal effect observed on the marine environment with the current practice of discharging the sewage, after screening, through the two deep sea outfalls 1-2 KM offshore through long diffusers. There is continued improvement in the Clover point monitoring results but some concerns around the Macaulay point results. These concerns should not too quickly be attributed to the sewage outfall particularly at the 400 Meter site where it is very difficult to identify the highly dilute plume. I am glad the report states “Preliminary information indicates that similar declines in benthic community health have been observed over the same time period at other monitoring stations in the Strait of Georgia, Juan de Fuca Strait and Puget Sound, even at locations far away from point sources of pollution such as municipal wastewater outfalls”.
I am disappointed that there is not going to be another report for five years because this unique marine receiving environment has been very intensely monitored and if land based sewage treatment plants do not get built it would be helpful to continue to know annually the status of the receiving environment.
Speaking to Agenda item 9 – the performance audit of the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan.
The audit review comments that one of the objectives not achieved “there is no signed agreement with either the provincial or federal governments for the provision of two thirds funding for the project - this has not been completed”. This funding commitment was meant to be in place in 2010.
From my perspective this is welcome because the more this project is delayed the less likely it is to be completed.
As most of you are aware I belong to a large group of people who have been convinced that, based on the evidence, that the planned $782 million land based secondary treatment for the core area is not needed and will be a waste of taxpayers dollars. There will be no measurable benefit from this vast expenditure. The marine monitoring report provides further evidence of the minimum effect that is occurring.
The report states that the final system configuration is behind schedule. From my understanding there are two major decisions that have to be made if land based secondary sewage treatment plants are to be constructed. The first is whether land closer to McLoughlin point, such as the Schitzer Steel Industries site in the inner harbor, will be purchased. The second issue is how will the toxic sludge be finally disposed of. Will it be on the land (outside the CRD – because the CRD Board has resolved not to apply it to land – even forage crop land) or is it really going to be dried (using a great deal of energy) and then transported to the lower mainland and burned in a lime kiln?
To finish my comments to-day I suggest that you recommend to the CRD Board that as well as publishing this audit report and inviting comments (as is the staff recommendation) but also the advertisements include that the Marine Monitoring Report (Agenda item 8) being available and invite public comment on that report at the same time.
Thank you,
Dr Shaun Peck, Public Health Consultant.
Member of Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria www.rstv.ca
Board member of the Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment. www.aresst.ca