STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Mr. James DeWolfe
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we will call this meeting to order. A few of our members are going to have to move on to another committee meeting at 10:30 a.m. so I think, if at all possible, we will try to get it wrapped up by then. We also have a few replacement members. Today, we are going to have Mr. Maurice Lloyd who is here with us now. Maurice is with the Halifax Regional Municipality and we also have Mr. Laurie Emms from the Bear River Solar Aquatic. He is probably en route. So we will start with Mr. Lloyd.
Before we start, Mr. Lloyd, I would ask you to talk into the microphone and sit up front when you are making any verbal presentations. We do have the session recorded for Hansard and also any members, I will remind you to talk into the mikes. So without further ado, I am Jim DeWolfe, Chairman of the committee. Perhaps we could go around the table just so you could get a feel for who is here and what constituency they represent. Starting with Tim, perhaps we could identify ourselves.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Also at the table, we have Darlene Henry who is the recording secretary and the main person for this committee. She is the nuts and bolts of this committee.
So without further ado, Maurice, I will turn the meeting over to you. I understand you have a presentation for us, a video, and I will mention that normal procedure is that we have a presentation and then allow sufficient time for questions. I believe you have already been made aware of that. Thank you very much, then.
MR. MAURICE LLOYD: I have a short, five minute video here. It wasn't put together for this particular kind of meeting but it does, I think, in a pictorial way, describe the problems in Halifax Harbour and generally the solutions. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and some of you have already seen it.
[Video presentation.]
MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, I think the video demonstrates the problem but perhaps I could take a few minutes here and just give you a little more detail on it. This is a map of the harbour that shows the Halifax peninsula down at the lower level here and you can see the 40-some outfalls that are around the harbour. Actually, that number has been diminished to about 27 now because there has been some consolidation in the meantime. In Dartmouth, as Mr. Olive will know, the outfalls in Dartmouth Cove were consolidated into one. So over time we have reduced the numbers of outfalls and we are at the point now where we really have about five major outfalls on the harbour itself and one in Herring Cove. These are important because they dictate the location of the future treatment plants.
The one up here at Duffus Street is the biggest one and then we have one over here that serves the Burnside area. This is the consolidated one in Dartmouth. There is a fairly major one near the Ocean Terminal area and then we have one over here on the Northwest Arm and one down in Herring Cove.
The solution that has been brought forward is to build four primary treatment plants. The idea here is to meet some objectives with regard to water quality so there would be three treatment plants on the harbour: one in the north peninsula area near the end of Cornwallis Street, we have publicly announced that site and this is the outfall area; one in Dartmouth, somewhere around Dartmouth Cove or the Coast Guard station; one in the South End, in the Ocean Terminal area; and then one down here in Herring Cove.
The construction of these plants and the operation of them should allow us to meet certain water quality objectives in terms of being able to swim in the water, in terms of being able to take fish out of the water, in terms of being able to eat shellfish under certain conditions.
The cost of the project, as we have indicated, is estimated to be $315 million and we have recently had cause to believe that that is a fairly accurate estimate, although we won't know until we get specific proposals in. The council has agreed to increase the surcharge on the water bill to the point where it will raise $210 million of the capital money and we have been talking to both the federal and provincial governments about the remaining $105 million, representing one-third of the capital costs, suggesting that we would like to have that cost-shared. The regional council has also committed to the full operating cost, an annual cost of somewhere between $7 million and $9 million and we are not looking for any cost-sharing on that. It is just $105 million that we are looking for, one-third of the capital cost.
We have done some public polling, which is always of interest, to ask people how they feel about the importance of having the harbour cleaned up. The first poll was in 1996 and the recent one was in May of last year. It is running about 87 per cent to 88 per cent feeling it is very important and another 9 per cent or 10 per cent feel it is somewhat important. So there is a lot of public support for the project.
We also asked people if they would be prepared to pay an increased charge on their water bill in order to pay for it. We didn't get the same degree of enthusiasm here, but nevertheless a total of 71 per cent strongly support paying an additional fee and another 31 per cent generally support it. When you knock off the "no opinion" down there at 4 per cent, we are running at about 75 per cent support for people who are prepared to pay an increase in their water bill in order to help pay for the project.
We also asked the question as to whether they felt other levels of government should help to support the project and 71 per cent felt that there was some obligation on both the federal and provincial government to help support the project. All of these tables are in that book that we gave out to you by the way so you can look at them at your leisure. It may be of interest that we have looked at the impact of the project from the point of view of job creation and income generated to the federal and provincial governments. If we look at the capital costs of $315 million, there is a total impact of over 7,000 jobs per person years of work generated in Nova Scotia and almost $30 million, $27.8 million, of revenue that flows to the province in taxes, in income tax and so forth. The federal government gets about $58.7 million in revenue out of the project.
We look at the annual operating impact and this goes on year after year. There are about 180 jobs generated in the province, about $1 million per year in revenue to the province, and almost $2 million in revenue to the federal government every year. I don't know how far you want to go into this. It's probably not the purpose of the meeting but we did look at the growth in provincial revenue, the accumulated growth, the dark black line being the money that would accrue to the provincial coffers based on the capital works and that levels off at about $28 million, and with the dotted line being - as the first treatment plant comes on stream - we begin to build up an operating revenue and that continues on at $1 million a year.
The dark gray area would be, if the province would split the $105 million, $52.5 million, then this would be a $15 million draw which we've put out about three years and another $15 million, so at the beginning of the project, the revenue generated actually exceeds the demand. Later on we push the envelope past that, but this is coming in here at about $1 million a year. They do eventually cross but it is quite a ways out. Perhaps I will take another minute and put up what happens on the federal side, because of the much larger revenue generated to the federal government, in fact the revenues from the project exceed the request for the $52.5 million. All of this is in constant dollars. We would have to get into fancier formulae to fill it more precisely, but it does give you some idea of the picture.
I think that's probably it, Mr. Chairman. If there are any questions I can answer, I can perhaps get at your specific interest in the project a little better that way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. Perhaps some of our members would like to field a question or two. Does anyone have a question in mind? John.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you very much. I'm John MacDonell, I'm the MLA for Hants East. When you talk about revenue generation, what is that from? Is that from taxes generated from salaries?
MR. LLOYD: It is a combination of taxes generated from salaries and from the HST and those kinds of revenues. Mainly from salaries, from income tax generated from the salaries.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lloyd, you seem to have quite favourable support on this from your surveys. I am wondering how far out into the HRM did you go with the surveys? You would get more people in the metro area, as such, in support of it, probably than you would get in the rural areas of HRM. Would that be correct?
MR. LLOYD: The increase on the water bill, the project is funded through a surcharge on the water bill if you are also connected to a sewer system, so the survey would have covered all of HRM. It is a survey that we do that includes a number of subjects. It wasn't specifically focused on this. It's done, I think, quarterly or at least twice yearly. We simply added a few questions in about the project so it did cover all of HRM, but the people who will be paying the cost are the people who are on water and also have a connection to a sewer line.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How many households would be on the outflows?
MR. LLOYD: Gosh, I haven't really got that figure right at my finger tips. We are probably looking at about 180,000 people. There are two treatment plants now that serve part of the region. Bedford and Sackville are served by treatment plants, as is Colby and Forest Hills and Lakeside-Timberlea. So there are a number of treatment plants. It is basically the old Cities of Dartmouth and Halifax that are not connected, although some of that does extend out into the county, obviously; in Herring Cove, for example, we are picking up parts of the county.
So, we are looking at about 180,000 people, divide that by three, that would give you a pretty good estimate of the number of dwelling units, about 60,000, I would say. In that range, plus or minus a bit.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacAskill.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Maurice, you mentioned that you had diminished the outfalls from 41 to 27 or something to that effect. Now, the outfalls that were diminished, they were directed to another outfall. Was any of that sewage treated?
MR. LLOYD: No, that was strictly a consolidation of outfalls. What we did, for example, in Dartmouth was we took the sewage out of Dartmouth Cove, consolidated five or six, maybe seven, outfalls there and brought the sewage out more into the middle of the harbour. If you noticed on the video when it was flying over and it said a sewage outfall and you could see it boiling up there, that is where the outfall is from that consolidated outfall. What it did was, I think, have a fairly positive impact on Dartmouth Cove but we simply moved the problem further out into the harbour.
MR. MACASKILL: It would move it out where the tidal flow would be more aggressive?
MR. LLOYD: Yes, it would, but no treatment yet, but we will pick that up as part of the project.
MR. MACASKILL: So that would be your major outfall now, that one in the centre of the harbour?
MR. LLOYD: Yes, the two major plants are the one on the north of the peninsula, just at the corner of Cornwallis and Barrington Streets, where the HRM owns some land. That would be the largest plant. That picks up an area that includes all of Rockingham and that area, there is a fairly large tunnel which comes down with a big pumping station at the end of Duffus Street; there is about 50 million litres a day that is pumped out there, by the old Volvo plant, where that used to be. We pick that up and bring it down to the site. We would also pick up two of the outfalls adjacent to the waterfront and take them back to the site. So that is the biggest plant and then Dartmouth would be the second biggest. The one in the South End is a little smaller and Herring Cove is smaller again.
MR. MACASKILL: In 1963, I worked with MacNamara Construction when they took the sewer from down along Herring Cove from the village before Herring Cove right out to . . .
MR. LLOYD: From Spryfield right out, yes.
MR. MACASKILL: Spryfield. That day that was a vast improvement wasn't it, to take it off land and run it into the harbour?
MR. LLOYD: Yes, there have been a number of significant improvements but the areas continue to grow and the volume that we are dumping into the harbour continues to increase. So I think we are at the point that this has become the premier project, certainly
from the point of view of HRM Council - they have indicated that it is their top-priority project - and from the point of view of public support, there is quite a feeling that we had better clean the harbour up.
It is a major engineering project but it really is a community development project because the objectives here are to clean up the environment to demonstrate good stewardship, to support tourism initiatives along the harbour and so forth. It requires a major piece of engineering design and a lot of construction to build it but it really is a community development project in that sense. That is what we are after.
MR. MACASKILL: Number one, two, three, four, where does Herring Cove stand in that list of your major outfalls?
MR. LLOYD: Herring Cove is the smallest. I can give you some idea . . .
MR. MACASKILL: But isn't that an area of steady growth, the Herring Cove area?
MR. LLOYD: That is an area of fairly steady growth and the other one is the North End area which is fairly steady; the whole Rockingham area right out almost to the boundary of the old Town of Bedford, for example, is a fairly heavy growth area. That is an interesting question because the people of Herring Cove have expressed some concern, they want the sewage treated and cleaned up but, on the other hand, they do not want to lose the quality of their community. It is a fairly small village right now and they aired some concern that this could trigger development.
So what we have done is we have commissioned a study and we have a community group now who are looking at the alternatives and what the impact would be on the community and how that could be dealt with through a change in their municipal development plan, that way.
MR. MACASKILL: That is also quite a lucrative lobster ground along that area as well as other species maybe?
MR. LLOYD: It is indeed, right, and when the project is finished, essentially you could take fish from anywhere, except for shellfish. In the main harbour you would still have to clean the shellfish up. I think there has been a recognition by our advisory committee that this is a working harbour and, while we are cleaning it up to a great degree, we are not cleaning up the main harbour to the same level of water quality that we would, say, in the Northwest Arm or the outer harbour or Bedford Basin, which are high recreational and fishery areas.
MR. MACASKILL: How confident are you that the two levels of government will consider this a priority within the next three, four, five years?
MR. LLOYD: I really don't know. We have made a submission to the current government, we made a submission to the previous government provincially, and we have certainly made submissions to the federal government through our senators and the contacts we have there, but we have not had a positive reaction so far.
I will say we had a letter from the Premier indicating that he felt it was a very important project but, given the fact that the government is going through the review of all their programs right now, they did not feel the government was in a position to commit to the project yet. They did not say no, but did not say yes, but did appoint a senior civil servant to work with us in terms of talking to the federal government.
MR. MACASKILL: Of course Sydney Harbour and the Bras d'Or Lakes are facing the same dilemma . . .
MR. LLOYD: Well, we haven't done a very good job in Canada, period, where we dump our effluent into salt water: St. John's, Newfoundland, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Sydney, Victoria, Vancouver to a degree, Kitimat. So it is a fairly major problem. We have done a better job in Canada where we are dumping our effluent into fresh water, but not salt water.
MR. MACASKILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can add Pictou Harbour to that. They have put in treatment plants in what we call the Upper Towns, Trenton, Stellarton and New Glasgow, but yet it is tidal from Pictou Harbour up through there, so everything comes up from Pictou Harbour anyway.
MR. LLOYD: Yes. The New Glasgow area has done a great job for a long time in treatment . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . but we have to get Pictou onstream.
MR. LLOYD: You need Pictou, yes. It is a fairly significant problem. Lunenburg is facing the same.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lloyd, I have a couple of areas that I would like to ask you about. First of all, when you talk about the constituents in HRM agreeing to an increase in their water bills to pay the $210 million committed by HRM, does that include or has there been any consideration regarding an up-charge for the real heavy users, whether they are the industrial, institution, federal government, to pay a proportionate share over and above what the normal homeowner would use?
MR. LLOYD: Not any more than they all tend to use a much higher volume. There is quite a heavy impact on some of the major users like some of the shopping centres, the people like Farmer's Dairy, some of the hospitals for example, simply because of the volume of water they use, but we haven't looked at any extra surcharge over and above that. There is a fairly heavy impact already on them.
MR. OLIVE: When the program is implemented and you have, obviously, done some surveys to determine the positive effect of cleaning up the pollutants going into the harbour, has there been any consideration when doing that research, and the example I will give you is, from my understanding both in London and in Boston Harbour, there was a parallel effort to ensure that industry refrain from the continual pollution. It is one thing to take domestic sewage out of the system and not put it in the harbour, but if there is not a parallel program in place to prevent the industrial users, whether it is the shipyards or whatever, has that been looked at and is there going to be a parallel program?
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. LLOYD: We have a committee, a staff group, that has been working on this for some time and there is a report that has just gone to council looking at source reduction, to try and get rid of some of the real nasty stuff at source. Initially the program is focusing in on people like the photographic shops and automobile paint/repair shops and there is one other, the kind of industry that tends to put the heavy metals and so forth into the system more than others. The idea would be that over time that would be expanded to include the entire community, even getting into households for that matter, but the initial focus is on the people who have the greatest impact on putting the nasty stuff into the stream, I guess, is the way to put it.
We also have a policy that we are developing to look at reducing the inflow from storm water into the system. A lot of these pipes are combined systems in that they carry roof drains as well as sanitary sewer and there is a lot of inflow that happens simply because you put a sewer pipe down and you bed it on gravel and that gravel is kind of like an underground French drain and then eventually they do get a little settling in the sewer and the cracks will open and you get a lot of inflow into the system. So we are looking at a program of trying to reduce that inflow into the system, to get rid of some of the storm water and separate it and take it out in another way.
MR. OLIVE: I am glad to hear that there is an appreciation for that because it seems to me that if homeowners in the HRM are going to be required to have a substantial increase in their water bill - it is almost mandatory that that program of ensuring industrial pollution is eliminated but that would be in a perfect world but probably will never be totally eliminated - that there be an incentive for them to clean up their industrial pollution, the incentive being either positive through tax incentives or negative from the point of view of very heavy fines if they don't understand the seriousness of it.
MR. LLOYD: It may interest the committee to see what the projected impact is on the average household water bill of the increase that council has approved, about 10 cents per year for each of the years 1999 through to 2002. Currently the average water bill is about $270. It would go up by about $71 to about $341. So we are talking about $6.00 per month, roughly, for the average household in the end; about $17 on the first increase, which went on last July and then it builds up $37, $54, $71. So it is a fairly significant hit for some homes but on the other hand, we have tried to keep the costs down as much as we can. If we don't get our other one-third, then you can add another one-third onto that roughly. So that is the impact.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just one other point, if I may. When this is up and running, in a perfect world, when all the sewage is treated and going into the harbour, is there a program in place in the future to reclaim areas like the floor of Dartmouth Cove or the area along the Halifax waterfront that has been subjected to so much pollution, there is probably 20 feet of garbage on the bottom of the floor. I would appreciate that just the flushing of the harbour may take a lot of that, but in the case of Dartmouth Cove, there is no flushing and there is a very serious problem which has been created by sewage. Is there, at some point way down the road, an area of concern that will be addressed regarding the removal of those contaminants?
MR. LLOYD: Well, there is a concern that we have noted but we have not really moved very actively to address that in the current program. We are very focused on getting these four advanced primary treatment plants built and operating. I think there are some other things that we would have to look at down the road. For example, we had the incident of the aircraft carrier dumping in the harbour. Well, we have talked to the Ports people and their reply is, well, you know, when you get your systems up and operating, then we are prepared to look at that kind of thing because really that is a fairly insignificant amount going into the harbour when you look at the 100 million gallons a day that is going in right now. So there are things like that that we have to look at down the road, too, but I think the very first step is to get these four treatment plants built and get them operating.
We will also have to talk to maybe the shipyards, for example. When they are painting a boat, they have to make sure there aren't nasties going in the water and so forth. So there will be a continuing program here that we will have to get into. The plants will also be designed so that if required down the road, if the environmental regulations get a little stiffer, that we can add secondary treatment, and we are asking our partners in their design to make sure that they have laid the plant out so that secondary is an option that can be added later on.
So I think there will be a continuing program evolving here. We keep hearing rumours that the federal government is looking at bringing in a much higher requirement for effluent. We understand a paper is being developed federally. We don't know where that will go, so we have to be flexible to respond to those kind of initiatives down the road but do as much
as we can now. I think if we can get these four plants built and operating, it will be a very significant step forward.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Lloyd, I have heard your presentation on a previous occasion and I have spent a lot of time thinking about the harbour problems, having been on city council and also heavily involved in the environmental assessment that went forward for the predecessor project in 1994. I want to tell you why it is that I am extremely sceptical about this project at all. When you think back about the 1994 environmental assessment, the main recommendation that came out of that panel was that a whole system of source controls should be put in place as a matter of first priority before the municipality starts thinking about treatment plants. That was the main recommendation in 1994. It seems to me that again we are seeing a proposal for something that is high cost, low benefit, a classic end-of-pipe proposal that is coming forward without the preliminary steps actually being in place.
Now it is certainly true that HRM has commissioned studies on source controls but the system isn't up and running. It seems to me that what is probably a bit misleading about the suggestions that are made about treatment plants are that they are going to affect the water quality significantly beyond something that could be achieved through source controls. Now I don't think that is really the case to the extent that there is - in the words of your video - a potential health hazard. That potential health hazard is almost exclusively from hazardous waste materials that are put into the system rather than from human bodily waste.
The pathogens in human bodily waste are killed within 24 hours by the cold sea water but the hazardous materials that end up in the sewer system, either from industrial or domestic sources, are not affected by the cold sea water and they are the real problem. That must mean that attention should be focused first on source controls which could be done through an expenditure of a lot less money, primarily through the tool of education and some targeted monitoring. That seems to me to be a much more sensible way to spend public dollars here. Make no mistake, I think that there are problems with the harbour but the place to start would be with the source controls.
Now you can think about the problem in a different way. When I look at how the HRM reactivated its interest in the harbour, it did so through a symposium in November 1996. That symposium generated about 12 principles that were supposed to be the guidelines for a harbour project. When I compare what is being proposed for $300 million with the principles, it seems to me that there are deficiencies. One of them is, Principle 7 said that source control is an integral part of the system. Well, it is not an integral part of the system, it is separate. It is a whole separate item. The $7 million or $8 million operating costs that you are talking about, that is not the cost of source controls, as I understand it. The cost of source controls is beyond that. This is just like the Halifax Harbour clean-up proposal. It didn't have source controls as part of it. They hadn't even contemplated them. At least HRM has contemplated them now but the cost is not included and it is not part of the same project.
The other is, Principle 3 says, proceed on a step by step incremental approach, building on past successes and considering innovation and small scale approaches. Well, it is true that we have gone from one treatment plant on McNabs Island or on an artificial island in the harbour to four treatment plants but I don't think that is what innovation and small scale approach is contemplated as one of the principles that was adopted in that symposium and it was subsequently adopted by Halifax City Council or HRM Council, actually. The kind of thing that we are going to hear about in Bear River about solar aquatics, perhaps as part of the system in some areas, it is completely missing. There is nothing there.
I understood that the Department of the Environment, in its Environmental Technologies Branch here, is trying to build more jobs based on new technology in Nova Scotia. Now here is an area where everyone feels something should be done and yet it is not at all clear that there is going to be any new technology or that the jobs will be new technology or research jobs will build an industry of any sort. I am sure there will be construction jobs and there will be operating jobs but again, there is part of a principle here that is not being followed.
Principle 11 says, develop a sludge management strategy which will consider sludge as a resource. I haven't heard details of what it is that is proposed in the treatment plants but it seems to me that I certainly haven't heard any suggestion that sludge is going to be treated as a resource out of those plants. I think you described them, on a previous occasion, as advanced primary. In terms of the categories of sewage treatment, there is primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary is still kind of, pretty well even if it is advanced, the lowest level of treatment and it doesn't seem to get at the underlying concerns that I think were articulated and adopted following that and following that symposium.
So I worry about this. I worry that we are looking at an expensive engineering project that is likely to deliver relatively little benefit for quite a high cost. This concerns me, as a person with a long-time involvement in this, as a former city councillor and as a person trying to keep an eye on rational expenditures of provincial dollars. So it doesn't surprise me that there is no rush on the part of the provincial and perhaps federal governments to come in with $52 million each to help out on this project. I see an obligation on the part of those two levels of government to participate but I think that, and I hope that there is some scepticism on their parts that will lead to changes in how it is that whatever project is finally adopted goes forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lloyd, do you have a quick comment on that?
MR. LLOYD: I would like to make a quick comment on that. To begin with, we are trying to move a number of things here in parallel. Source control is something that we are actively working on and I should point out that the increase that we are putting on the water bill, here, to raise the money doesn't all go to building the treatment plants. It also goes to
maintaining our current plants, operating the current system part of it and to things like source control. I perhaps didn't bring that out very clearly in my response.
We are interested in new technology. We have a big volume of effluent to deal with here, 100 million litres a day is a fairly significant volume, and I don't think we can use the kind of techniques that Laurie is using up in Bear River for a relatively small village. We will hear about that in a minute.
On the sludge management system, in the RFP we have asked our private partners -
and we have some of the best companies in the world here - to come forward and propose to us a sludge management system that would have beneficial uses. We have left it broadly and we have given some idea of what we see as beneficial uses.
Just to let the members know, primary treatment is this: it is screening out the floatables as they come out so that we don't get things floating around in the harbour that we don't like; and it is removing the grit from the system, because you slow down the energy in the water, you get some settling out of particles and that is the sludge that we talk about. Advance primary adds a flocculating agent to it so we get more of the material settled out. Then we also do an ultraviolet disinfection as it leaves. Those are the two components; the difference between primary treatment and advanced primary is that. We do get a lot more out. We are not going to the level of secondary, but it is somewhere between primary and secondary and we get a lot more of the material out.
Material would be dewatered at the plant to decrease the volume and then it would be taken to a central place for further processing, and we are looking for beneficial applications. We want our private partners to bring that back to us. I will leave it at that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. Unfortunately, we could talk about this all day, we have to start moving towards a conclusion with this presentation. Mary Ann has a question next.
MS. MARY ANN MCGRATH: Currently there is a sewer development charge attached to building permits in the Halifax Regional Municipality?
MR. LLOYD: There is a sewer charge . . .
MS. MCGRATH: Just upped it to $500.
MR. LLOYD: Yes, that is to connect into the current sewer. That is not part of our revenue stream here, it goes partly to maintaining the current system, but it is not money that flows into the Harbour Solutions Project itself.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is all you had?
MS. MCGRATH: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: John, you had a quick question.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Yes, a couple of things. Have you costed out, or has anybody costed out the difference between primary or advanced primary compared to secondary and tertiary . . .
MR. LLOYD: We haven't put a cost on it specifically, no, but we know it would be a fairly significant . . .
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Like double or . . .
MR. LLOYD: No, on a $300 million project, my ballpark guess would be it would add $80 million to $100 million.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: That would be for the tertiary level?
MR. LLOYD: No, for secondary. Tertiary would be, I don't know, way beyond that. It is a big step.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Okay. The other question I have - a couple of questions - I will make them quick. The 27 outfalls that you have, will all of that be treated in this system? Will there be 15 that . . .
MR. LLOYD: No, we will be picking up all of the outfalls. Part of the project is to build the collection system. We will be treating what we call "four times the dry weather flow" so there will be severe storm conditions when there will still be some overflow into the harbour, probably about 20 times a year, in that kind of a range. If we get what we call a once-in-a-50-year-storm or once-in-a-100-year-storm, you simply can't handle that kind of volume. So there will still be some overflow, very diluted but it will still be there.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I am just thinking about, I think it was Herb Dhaliwal's comment about people who are polluting should be jailed, or whatever. I know the mayor . . .
MR. LLOYD: The mayor is looking forward to that.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: . . . had some reaction to that, but I am just wondering, in light of his comment, what is the reaction you get from the federal people you talk to about this project? I am assuming they would be jumping to help then, if that is Mr. Dhaliwal's view on it.
MR. LLOYD: Well, if so we haven't seen it. We have had meetings with Senator Boudreau and we have had meetings with ACOA. That is the route we are taking. Everybody thinks the project should go ahead, but I think from the federal perspective they are looking at all those other harbours out there too. Now we think we have set the bar fairly high here when we are putting up two-thirds of the cost; we are not asking the government to split each a third, we are saying can you split a third between you. That was a deliberate move by council to set the bar fairly high so that we could perhaps get the support that we need.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boudreau.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I apologize, I have a bit of a cold today. As a former municipal councillor and a deputy mayor, I sympathize with you a little bit, especially when I had the opportunity to begin some negotiations to try to convince the provincial and federal governments that there is a need here. Although they agree the need is there, they won't come up with the money and, of course, money talks. I think the economic impact here - I am way down in Cape Breton and I recognize the need to get this harbour cleaned up.
In asking this I have a lot of confidence in the ability of municipal administrators to get a project like this completed successfully, so my question is, will this project work? Can you clean up Halifax Harbour with this project?
MR. LLOYD: Yes, I am confident we can. Now having said that, if the requirements for BOD reduction are increased very dramatically over the current requirements, we would have to add the secondary treatment, but yes, we can clean up the harbour here.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, at some point in time before the presentation is completed, I would like to make a motion that this committee go on record as supporting this project, and sending a letter, probably to the Premier, asking him for the necessary funding to be allotted for this project. So whenever you are ready to accept that . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to make that a motion?
MR. BOUDREAU: I will make it right now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion has been made that this committee support in principle this project . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, when are we going to debate this? I am not going to vote in favour of it, and I have things I want to say about it. But we have another presentation . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: I think we ought to hear our next presentation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree. Would you agree to put that off until the end?
MR. BOUDREAU: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. If that ends the questions for . . .
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, just on that note, we are not talking about the technology here, we are talking about the need to get the program completed and to get the harbour cleaned up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand.
MR. BOUDREAU: As I said before, I have complete confidence in the municipal administrators to know which technology is necessary to get this harbour cleaned up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess my concern is, do we have enough information to work with to support or defeat this motion of yours at this time, but all I am doing is chairing this meeting. I certainly want to thank you, Mr. Lloyd, for your presentation, and we certainly had some interesting dialogue with regard to this.
I can tell you that the clean-up of Halifax Harbour was a topical situation on the ferries and in the boardrooms back in the 1960's when I first started working in Halifax and travelling the harbour every day on the ferries. In fact, at that time I sat on a committee that was involved in the clean-up of Halifax Harbour back in 1967. I have a bit of an interest in it. I hope that in 35 years to come, we are not still sitting around discussing the clean-up of Halifax Harbour. In fact it should be cleaned up as well as a lot of other harbours in Nova Scotia.
So again I thank you for your presentation, and thank you for coming in today. We shall turn the meeting over to our next presenter. Mr. Emms. Mr. Lloyd, you are quite welcome to sit through this one and give him moral support and all those good things.
MR. LLOYD: Laurie and I are old colleagues, we worked together for about 10 years.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was aware of that.
MR. LLOYD: Maybe longer than that.
MR. LAURIE EMMS: Longer than that, and you are getting older too.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Emms is with the Bear River Solar Aquatic. It ties in somewhat with this, on a smaller scale. Certainly many of us are from rural communities, so anything you have to say would be most interesting to us, I am sure, from our communities. I have many villages that make up Pictou East, some of them are quite large villages.
I will turn the meeting over to you, and again I will ask you to talk into the mike. We are going to try to get through this a little early. I don't know how long your presentation is, but we will just play it by ear. If some of the members have to go early, then so be it, the rest of us can stay.
MR. EMMS: Former councillor Chipman knows I can drag it out forever or I can cut it right down, if you would like.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee. Greetings from Annapolis County where the sun was out this morning and the sky was clear when I left. My name is Laurie Emms, I am the Director of Municipal Services for the Municipality of Annapolis County. I have been in the municipal engineering business for 30 years. I have practised in most of the provinces in Canada, and like Maurice, I am getting old.
Technology is the term that is used to describe the study or use of a combination of mechanical arts and applied science. The topic I am dealing with here is Technology and Wastewater Management. Municipalities collect and treat wastewater or sewage. We collect and treat wastewater and sewage in order to preserve and protect our aquatic environment and to protect the health of our citizens. We use processes and equipment to collect, to treat wastewater. Technologies related to the equipment, the materials that are used to make the equipment, the processes that we use are changing. The technologies have always been changing. This is not new.
The most critical issues related to technological change and wastewater management are, first of all, ensuring the application of appropriate technology, and I am stealing one of Maurice's coined terms from 15 years ago. Secondly, having or developing the capability to maximize the benefits of new technology; and third, balancing the use of technology with our broader social responsibility. By the way, technology that gets the job done in the most cost-effective manner is the appropriate technology.
Annapolis County, in our experience with wastewater management, we used many wastewater management technologies. We are, of course, recognized as the home of the first and still one of the few solar aquatics plants in Canada. Solar aquatics is very popular with the public, it is nice and warm and fuzzy, and we treat sewage in a greenhouse concept, which has a lot of public appeal. A very limited application for potential but it looks nice.
We use other wastewater treatment technologies. We have a high-rate activated sludge plant that serves Cornwallis Park. We have a sequencing batch reactor plant that serves Frank's home in Nictaux. The technology associated with the sequencing batch reactor plant, including a relatively complex automated control system, is relatively new and unique. It could be considered new technology. We use ultraviolet light, and have for many years, to disinfect sewage at our Nictaux plants and at the little plant at Bear River.
Elsewhere in Annapolis County, the Town of Middleton uses a swirl flow separator to manage and treat combined sewage runoff. Maurice mentioned that when it rains hard, they are going to dump diluted but untreated waste into the harbour. In Middleton, they dump it into a swirl flow separator and then treat it before they dump it into the river. That's relatively unique technology in Atlantic Canada.
At Lawrencetown, Annapolis Royal, the Upper Clements Theme Park, use aerated lagoons to treat sewage. Bridgetown uses a stabilization pond. Mountain Gap Inn has a recirculating sand filter to treat its sewage. So the technologies used in different locations in the Valley are quite different, some of them are new, some of them are old. However, for the most part, they all satisfy the expectations of the public and the regulatory regimes.
I want to talk a little bit about the applications of new technology. We are inclined to think of new technology as a new piece of equipment, a new process or a new material, something that hasn't been used before or that has very limited current use, again in our industry. The reality is, if you are a municipality, new technology is any piece of equipment or process that you didn't have yesterday. It is new. It is new to you. If you go out and buy a computer tomorrow, your first computer, it is new technology to you, computers have been around for a long time but if you haven't had one, the first one you buy is pretty new. There is a difference between new technology and new-to-you technology. One of the differences with new-to-you technology, chances are you have a friend or an associate who is able to help you deal with problems with your new-to-you technology, somebody else who has had it before. If you are using real new technology, you are either on your own to resolve problems or you have to rely on the vendor or the developer of the technology itself. For the most part, what is referred to as new technology in wastewater management in Nova Scotia is really new-to-us technology. It's not brand new. The frequency with which we really get the opportunity to deal with new technology is rare. The technology isn't being developed here.
[10:00 a.m.]
Public expectations and regulations related to wastewater management are becoming more and more difficult to satisfy. The public expects to get a better service at a lower cost. As society's understanding of the impact of treated sewage effluent on different aquatic environments improves, regulations become more stringent. Technological improvements of processes, materials and equipment provide us with the opportunity to do things better, faster and at a lower cost. Technological improvements provide us with the opportunity to meet the
changing public expectations and the regulatory requirements, and at the same time, to reduce capital, operating and maintenance costs on our sewage system. However, technological change also bears a risk. There is a risk that the new technology may impair our ability to perform a task. It may require us a longer period of time to do a task or it may cost us more. There is a risk.
Generally technology selection related to process and equipment is based on need. The needs fall into three categories. There are image needs, there is the need to be seen as responsible and the need to be seen as progressive. There are performance needs, the need to actually get the job done, the need to be responsive to your customers and the need to be flexible. Then, there are financial needs. There is a need to provide a service with an appropriate cost-benefit ratio and there is a very serious need within the municipal operations to provide a service within a prescribed budget. It doesn't matter whether it was the cheapest or not. If it was the cheapest but it still cost you 50 per cent more than was available to do it, you have a serious problem on your hands.
When we use new-to-us technology, we are usually able to determine from others' experience whether the new technology or the new-to-us technology will satisfy the performance and financial needs. If I want to look at a piece of technology that is being used in Truro, New Glasgow, Amherst or Lunenburg County, I can find out what it does. Unfortunately, new-to-us technology doesn't necessarily satisfy all of the potential image needs. If the image need is to appear to be a progressive leader, a pioneer, new-to-us technology doesn't do the job. This insufficiency is particularly relevant from a political perspective if the others with the experience are other Nova Scotian municipalities. You don't look progressive doing what your neighbour does.
However each time that an opportunity to apply a new technology or a different technology arises, we have to consider the opportunities and the risks and we have to ask, is the technology appropriate? Is the use of new or different technology necessary to satisfy image needs, performance needs and/or financial needs? What is the justification of using the new technology? What are the risks if a new or different technology doesn't do the job, the failure has some very significant impact on all three forms of needs. The need to use new technology is not optional and while I caution people on technology, the need to use new technology is not optional. If we are going to keep pace with the changes in public expectations and with regulatory change, we need new and better ways of doing things. I have to remind you, the issues we have to deal with are ensuring the application of appropriate technology, creating the capability to maximize potential benefits of new technology and balancing the use of technology with that broader social responsibility.
I am going to talk about each of those items very briefly. I even made up very high- tech overheads while Maurice was talking. Ensuring the application of appropriate technology; at the municipal level, we are receiving a constant flow of suggestions, ideas and recommendations regarding technologies and their application. The marketing of new
technology comes from technology developers, vendors, consultants, contractors, the general public and occasionally the regulatory agencies wander in and try to tell us how to do something with a new technology.
To improve the potential for getting the most appropriate technology, we must understand our needs and I talked about the image performance and financial needs. We must avoid the purchase of technology for technology's sake. We must avoid the purchase of technology that we do not have or cannot get the resources, tools, skills and money to use. We must avoid buying technology that offers features that we don't need. For example, there have been some fairly significant process improvements in the recent years in the removal of nutrients from sewage. Well, if your receiving water is the ocean, which is relatively insensitive to nutrients, why spend money on technology that removes them?
I have seen situations where municipalities have been faced with sewage upgrading options, complete technology change, one-phase-replace-what-you-have kind of thing. The other option is to pick away, trying to incorporate the technology that is in place with minor improvements and modifications. If you can't afford the new technology, it is not appropriate.
One of the biggest problems we deal with from a technological change perspective has to do with processes. Many improvements in sewage treatment processes have been made to reduce the size and the capital costs of treatment plants. This is done by increasing the speed of the process. It is like making the car faster. A side effect of this is an increase in the process operational complexity. You and I can go out and jump in our Chevs - and Toyotas, in my case - and drive them, but if somebody drops a new Ferrari out there we may not have the skill to deal with that technology. If the municipality doesn't have, can't get, or can't afford, the higher operator skills, then the high speed process technology is not appropriate.
The Ministry of the Environment in Ontario did some studies a number of years ago. They put a number of complex technologies into place in northern Ontario to treat water. Several years later, none of them worked. Are you going to get a Ph.D. in Chemistry and go live in a village in northern Ontario to operate their water treatment plant. It is fine if you are down in Toronto, there are all kinds of people around - with the exception of the Annapolis Valley where everybody wants to live. I feel sorry for the fellows from Pictou and Cape Breton, trying to get skilled people down there. (Laughter) Those are our issues related to getting the appropriate technologies.
The second issue that I spoke of was developing the capability to maximize the benefits of new technologies. Municipal works people in Nova Scotia have a very strong support network. Through formal organizations like the Atlantic section of the American Water Works Association (ANWA), the Maritime Public Works Waste Water Association (MPWWA) and informal groups like the Public Works Directors Club, meets twice a year. We advance technology upgrading. At seminars, training sessions and conferences, we talk about technology that we use, the benefits of the technologies, the costs and the problems.
We trust each other. We are not threats to each other and as individuals we all have direct, on-the-ground - or as my boss likes to refer to it, where the rubber meets the road - experience; we are not off pushing paper. Through networking and in this atmosphere of trust and respect, we are able to match technologies with our needs and to reduce the risks created by unknowns; for example, operating costs. The scariest thing in the world is how much is it going to cost to operate.
In order to understand more complex, advanced technologies, we need to understand basic principles of biological treatment processes, equipment applications and maintenance. From a management perspective, we need to understand human resource management, cost management and control, statistical process control. A key element in understanding this ever-changing technology is lifelong learning. We need to train and educate, train and educate our people. We need trainers, we need training facilities, and we need training programs. We need increased provincial support-like organizations, like the Atlantic section of the Canadian AWWA and the MPWWA and DalTech. These are the organizations that provide us with the opportunity to train and educate our people.
The final issue that I wanted to mention was balancing the use of technology with our broader social responsibility. We, in this room, as elected representatives and senior public servants, work for social profit; making money is not our objective. It is inappropriate for us, in our roles, to focus on specific public services and push for additional financial aid and regulation at the detriment of other important social issues. That is what separates us from business. If I am in business selling bubblegum, I can emphasize bubblegum as the most important thing in the whole world because that is my business, but as a senior public servant I have to acknowledge that our municipality is responsible for and cares for a lot of other very important social issues.
One of the features of technological advances is that they tend to eliminate entry level jobs. That axiom applies across both the public and the private sector. In business, where profit is the reason for being, it is probably appropriate to replace people with technology to reduce your operating costs. However, at the municipal government level, if we eliminate entry and lower level jobs with technology to reduce the cost of, for example, wastewater management, that cost may reappear on social service, unemployment insurance or other social program ledgers. The question we have to ask is, has a social profit been generated or are we just playing with numbers?
In the process of establishing treated sewage effluent standards - and that is the province's role for a municipal sewage treatment plant - is the broader social role of the municipality considered or is it a very narrow, focused approach? Is it appropriate for the province to set standards to protect aquatic environments and to minimize the risk of exposure to low-level carcinogens at the potential cost to policing, fire protection, traffic safety, programs to combat drug abuse, family violence, violence against women? Is it appropriate for one provincial government agency to push a municipality into expenditures
on wastewater management when the province's municipal finance watchdog is telling the municipality that you are on the edge, you don't have any borrowing capacity and, by the way, family violence and drug abuse in your area has gone up.
So in conclusion, in the wastewater management business, technology has always been with us. Technology is changing and it has always been changing. We incorporate new and different technologies to improve our ability to satisfy the ever-changing expectations of our customers; generally the changes also enable us to comply with regulatory changes. Technological change in wastewater management is not an option. We cannot continue to meet our obligations without new and better technology. The sources of new technology and the enticements to use it and buy it are abundant. We must be careful to ensure that we buy and use new technology to satisfy a factually demonstrated need, not, oh wouldn't it be nice. Wouldn't it be nice to have Halifax Harbour so that you could swim in it? You would take your life in your hands trying to swim from Halifax to Dartmouth. You are likely to get run down by somebody. It is worse than trying to cross Robie Street.
We must avoid the purchase of technologies that do not satisfy our needs. We must avoid the purchase of technology that we cannot afford. We must avoid the purchase of technology that we cannot manage, operate and maintain. We seldom have the opportunity to really pioneer the use of new technology. For the most part what we use is new to us. Somebody else somewhere else is using it. We have to rely on information gathered through formal and informal networks to determine if specific technology will actually satisfy those factually demonstrated needs. Through our industry organizations we develop links with other experienced public works personnel who we trust and respect and whose opinions we can rely on. If we are to maximize the opportunities created by new and evolving technologies, we need to train and educate our people.
Lifelong learning must become an industry standard. We need regulations and guidelines that are based on factual principles, again not postulations and wild guesses. We need to be able to work in an environment where our skills and experience are respected. We need to be able to work in an environment where the application of regulations and guidelines respects the broader scope of our social responsibilities. We must gain acceptance from regulators that the resolution of specific environmental problems may need to be delayed pending the resolution of other more important social problems.
While we must get and use new technology and better technology to meet the increasing demands of our customers and to overcome the shortcomings of past practice, we must do so with care. We must be careful that we do not deprive people of the opportunity to work in our industry and to learn from the bottom up how to manage wastewater. When you are in an area with a 30 per cent unemployment rate and somebody says here, you can buy this piece of equipment and it will eliminate a job, yes, what does that do to our unemployment rate this time?
What can the province do to enhance the use of better, newer technologies? I will make a couple of suggestions. The province can establish clear, balanced and flexible regulations and guidelines related to wastewater management. The province can generously support industry organizations that provide for the network. The province can support and make training opportunities more readily available to us. It is great in Halifax maybe. Down in my end of the province, I made it in here this morning, but that is a long haul and I live at the extreme east end of the county. So if somebody has got to come in for two days of training, it gets relatively expensive.
Something that the province might think of doing is creating opportunities to see and study emerging technologies in other parts of the country, the world; for example, by organizing tours and through some kind of tour organization reduce costs so that the people in the business can actually go and see a different technology and talk to the people who operate it.
Some of the things that you don't have to worry about doing, you don't have to worry about promoting new technology to us. Man, I can't take any more promotion of new technology. I have got a desk full of it, 20 pieces of literature a day plus constant phone calls and visits. We know about the new technology. You don't have to promote new technology to us. You don't need to advise us. Frankly, the province, and I am thinking of areas like the Department of the Environment, don't have the technical horsepower to advise us. We have more experience and knowledge of how to operate things than the Department of the Environment has. Regulate, don't advise, and you cannot do both. You cannot be an advisor and a regulator. Work with us, but the Department of the Environment, for example, should not expect that they will be able to develop a rapport with municipal staffs that is comparable to the link between people from different municipalities.
Frequently provincial agencies and their representatives are seen as threats to us. I can sit down with the town engineer in Truro and explain to him a problem that I have with a sewage plant or a water plant; he is not a threat to me. I cannot sit down with the Department of the Environment rep and do that. I don't know if he is going to come down on me because I am breaking a regulation or a guideline; I don't know if it is going to appear in the press the next day. I know that with my fellow municipal people, I can sit down and talk to them, and I know what we talk about remains in the room and I get real help based on real experience. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much. Do we have any questions now? I would just like to mention that some of our members have to go to another meeting and, Mr. Emms, you were not aware of that; I spoke of that prior to you coming in. So for those who have to leave, do they have any questions they would like to pass on?
MR. FRANK CHIPMAN: I just thought maybe Laurie could give them a background on the solar aquatics facility in Bear River, how it operates, the capacity, its capabilities?
MR. EMMS: Yes. The solar aquatics plant, a very pretty little greenhouse, has a capacity to serve 100 houses, so it really isn't appropriate in Halifax. You would need one hell of a big greenhouse to deal with that. The solar aquatics technology was appropriate in the Bear River situation. The opportunities to use it elsewhere haven't arisen. It has not been appropriate in any of our other areas where we have looked at and we have advised people, and we get people from all around the world looking for information on this little plant and, like I say, it is warm and fuzzy and it is treating sewage in a greenhouse, a tremendous public concept. There is about a 10-page paper by the way on our web page that explains how it got there and why it is there and what it does.
The reality is it doesn't do anything different than any of our other sewage treatment plants do. It doesn't perform any better. As a matter of fact it is more expensive to operate, and that is partly a function of size. There is a base cost of operating a sewage plant whether it handles 15,000 gallons a day or 1 million gallons a day. It is interesting, if you look at that plant, and my public works coordinator was commenting the other day that the energy consumption in the solar aquatics plant - a 15,000-gallon-a-day solar aquatics plant- is almost as high as the energy consumption in our million-gallon-a-day, high-rate-activated sludge plant. The plant has got its environmentally unfriendly side as well, but it is pretty, it has gotten us a lot of image-building, press and it does the job.
At the time it was put in it was, from a life-cycle cost perspective, still the best choice and that is why it is there. The image stuff and the community development features, which are very important, were actually secondary issues and by-products. The main reason for selecting solar aquatics technology was to get the system in there for the best cost.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Emms. I wonder if you would indulge us for a moment before our committee breaks up. While it is somewhat intact, we could deal with the motion that was put forward a little earlier, if that is acceptable. Very well then - and I certainly recognize that we have a problem with the Halifax Harbour sewage - I guess I have to ask the question: is the approach to the problem put forward by Mr. Lloyd in fact representative of the appropriate technology? I don't know that; I am not trained to know that.
We have heard from Mr. Emms, who talked about the balancing of technology and various types of technology that are on the go and, again, I don't know what is leading edge right now, what technology is just around the corner that may solve this problem out here with less hit on industry and indeed the homeowner. So having said that, the motion was put to the floor. Would you like to repeat your motion for Hansard?
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a motion to support the Halifax Regional Municipality in the initiative to get Halifax Harbour cleaned up, also recognizing the ability of the administrators to choose the technology, and that a letter of support be sent to the Premier and to Senator Boudreau requesting financial assistance be
provided, particularly to Halifax. Then, the long-term plan, perhaps, for other waterways within the province be put in place as a priority.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, first of all, do we have a seconder for the motion? You have heard the motion.
MR. MACASKILL: I will second it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The motion has been seconded. Anyone, speaking on the motion? Mr. MacDonell is first.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Yes, I would have some concerns. I think certainly the principle of cleaning up Halifax Harbour is not a difficult one to support. But whether or not this particular plan for cleaning it up is appropriate, I certainly would have to agree with you, Mr. Chairman. As far as my background, I did learn more from my colleague, Mr. Epstein, on this, just sitting here. So I would have some real questions as to whether this is the appropriate route to go on this. I guess the motion has been seconded, but certainly the principle to clean up Halifax Harbour, I don't think anybody would not agree in general terms that something has to be done there, but I certainly don't think I could support this plan without more information as to what other alternatives would be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Certainly 80 per cent of HRM would agree with you on that.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, Mr. MacDonell, I think, has said it correctly. In addition, this is the motion that encourages the spending of a large amount of money by the provincial government, whether that is immediate or a commitment for money to be spent over the next few years, it seems to me that we don't have enough information yet as a committee to endorse the spending of that. Clearly we have an alternative place for debating that should such a proposal come down in a budget, be it this year or next year, that would be the time to deal with it. Those of us who have spent a lot of time being immersed in these issues have reason to be sceptical. I don't speak here, I think, only as an individual, I am connected to a whole community of people who have been heavily involved in the question of what to do about Halifax Harbour and there is profound scepticism about the current project. In any event, for those and a variety of other reasons, I don't think I can support this motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, are you ready for the question? (Interruption) Mr. MacAskill.
MR. MACASKILL: Mr. Chairman, I seconded the motion in principle. I think as a committee it would be fair for us to make recommendations to the government, but to make recommendations to the government to spend money, I don't think that would be our mandate. But having listened to the submission by Mr. Lloyd, I think as a committee we
should respect the wishes of 88 per cent of the people. If we don't give the HRM some support in some form, then I think our committee is not fulfilling its role. I think as a committee we could make recommendations probably by letter, if the motion is not adopted, and we could make a letter supporting the HRM in their efforts. When they are prepared to lay two-thirds of the cost of this major project on the table, if we would walk away from this meeting without some support to the HRM, I think we are not fulfilling our role.
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boudreau.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, in defence of the motion, I think it is important to recognize that we have to initiate this process. Having a little bit of experience with a municipal government, I am not sitting here suggesting no mistakes will be made or whatever, but I think the process has to begin. I think this letter and this committee can play a very important role in initiating the process. I am encouraging the other members, of course; as I said before, I think it is important. You said it yourself, Mr. Chairman.
I am not an expert, I am not trained in sewer treatment, I have to rely on the administrators. With my experience in municipal government, and many of us here have experience in municipal government, we have to express our confidence in their abilities. The primary purpose of the motion is to initiate the process. Let's get Halifax Harbour cleaned up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With attachments though. But we do have a motion on the floor. Mr. Chipman.
MR. CHIPMAN: Just before we go, I would like to have the motion repeated, that is all. Clarify it again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is on record and there was a request to the senators and the Premier for funding. Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to concur with my colleague, Mr. MacAskill. I think it is important that the issue is advanced from an all-Party committee to the government, requesting that they support in principle the clean-up of Halifax Harbour, but I don't believe it is the prerogative of the committee or an option of the committee to suggest that there are dollars attached to that. I think it is important that we do advance it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive, we can do that with another motion then. We will deal with this motion first. Are you ready for the question?
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary, Nay.
The motion is defeated.
Would someone like to make another motion? It doesn't need to be done. If it is the wish of the committee, this committee will write a letter in support of the clean-up. We know where to go with it, if that is the wish of the committee then that will be done. And you would like it sent to the Premier and to the federal government representatives as well, is that my understanding? Then it will be done.
MR. BOUDREAU: Can we vote on that before the other members leave?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't need a vote on it, it is going to be handled. There are a few members leaving. Mr. Emms, thank you so much for your indulgence. We have 25 minutes that we can go with some questions toward your presentation. Thank you again for your time. Mr. MacDonell.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Emms, thank you for your presentation. I guess it is pretty hard to fault you. You covered yourself pretty much everywhere, I think. Certainly when you are dealing with taxpayers' dollars, then it would be nice to think that the people who are attempting to spend those dollars look at whether a technology, whether old or new or new to you, is appropriate and whether it meets the need plus is affordable, et cetera. I can certainly see that any responsible people would take all these questions into consideration.
MR. EMMS: It is surprising the frequency with which they are not taken into consideration, or that they are masked.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Tell me about it.
MR. EMMS: The creation of an illusion of a performance need, for example, to mask an image need, as opposed to simply saying we want to look good. It is one of the joys of working with the council in Annapolis County; when they want to look good, they say, we want to look good; they don't mess around.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I am wondering about a statement that you made, which may have been as an aside, or if you were using it as an example and weren't wondering about the accuracy of it, but something to the effect of oceans being relatively insensitive to nutrients . . .
MR. EMMS: To small amounts of nutrients.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Okay.
MR. EMMS: The example there would be the Bear River Solar Aquatics Plant. It does a great job of removing nutrients, or at least that is what is promoted. We don't bother even checking. We are discharging 10,000 or 12,000 gallons of sewage a day into a tidal estuary. Who cares if we are knocking phosphates down from 10 pounds a year to 8 pounds a year? It is irrelevant. To pay a premium, and in our case we didn't pay a premium to get that feature but if someone were to go out and buy that technology for the purpose of getting that feature when they don't need it, is like going out and buying a Cadillac to drive to and from work when you live in the apartment above your store downstairs. Is it really the appropriate technology?
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I guess from the next statement, how do you monitor what that system is doing if you are not checking?
MR. EMMS: We know the critical parameters there are biological oxygen demand and suspended solids. Biological oxygen demand is a costly and a time-consuming element to measure with municipal waste water, and we don't have any industrial waste water in Bear River. With municipal waste water, you can draw very predictable parallel curves between suspended solids loadings and biological oxygen demand loadings. Suspended solids is a quick easy test to perform. We do it on a daily basis on all of our plants, not just Bear River, on all of our plants.
We develop statistically process control models so that we can look at individual readings and groups of readings and say, has anything changed in our process? Our process has many elements, there are manpower inputs, there are energy inputs, there are process inputs, there is sewage actually coming in. Through our statistical process control analysis, we can determine that if nothing changes, suspended solids should fall within this range with a very high degree of reliability. If we do a sample and a test and it is outside, we say something has changed. It may not necessarily be bad, but something has changed and let's find out what it is and deal with it. Otherwise, leave it alone. Don't tinker with it if the system is doing what it is designed to do.
We do extensive sampling and testing in all of our sewer and water systems for that matter. That is the only way you know that you are doing your job. I made the reference and used the term earlier, factual demonstration information. Collect data, use it to create facts, don't postulate we do a great job because we work hard. Well, I am afraid not. You only do a good job if you can measure and demonstrate factually that you have done a good job.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Emms, I wonder if you could help me with understanding one of your earlier statements. You said flat out that you thought solar aquatics was not an appropriate technology in metro. I wonder if you could help me understand your logic there.
It seems to me that we have, in the metro area, a solar aquatics plant, it is out at the Beaver Bank Villa. It has been operating for some time and it services that community.
MR. EMMS: It services the Villa.
MR. EPSTEIN: The Villa, the people who live there, that is right. It seems to me that surely what you must be saying is that if it is a question of treating the sewage of hundreds of thousands of people in one plant then it might be problematic. I wonder if you could help us understand that. Would there not be opportunities for treating the sewage of smaller subcommunities inside the HRM?
MR. EMMS: I don't think so.
MR. EPSTEIN: Now, you tell me why.
MR. EMMS: One of the unknown features, if you want to call it that, of the solar aquatics plant, if you look at different technologies, activated sludge plants, characteristically hold sewage for a period of four to six hours, so you have tankage and structural systems sized to hold the sewage for four to six hours. If you go to a modified activated sludge plant, extended aeration, which was common in the 1960's and 1970's, they hold sewage for 24 hours. They do a pretty good job. The solar aquatics plant has the capacity to hold the sewage for three days. We don't treat the sewage, we wear it out. The cost of building those kinds of facilities at scales much beyond the size of the Bear River community is phenomenal.
As I mentioned earlier, the energy consumption of that plant is starting to approach that of a plant that is almost 100 times larger. To serve a community of 100 homes, whether it costs you $20,000 a year or $25,000 a year and you bury it in a customer base of a couple of thousand homes, it is not a big deal but you take it and try to put it into a Halifax type of situation. On a household basis, sewage service in Bear River, ignoring capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, runs close to $1,000 per year per household. In Annapolis County we charge $209 a year per household, that is our average cost of operating and maintaining eight sewage systems including three plants.
MR. EPSTEIN: You see that is the kind of information that I think would have been useful to have from you. What I think we need to know is why it is that 100 households in Bear River could do that and yet a community of 100 households located in the HRM couldn't do it. So, I take your point about, say, the Halifax Peninsula or the Dartmouth downtown, where the limiting factor is going to be the cost of land, the size of the land that you might need to service it, it may just not be available. But that may not be true through HRM. So if the cost of land is a factor then that is a clear point, the availability of land, the cost of land, I clearly understand. What I don't understand is why some subset of the HRM might not be an appropriate candidate for it and that would include places like Mainland South?
MR. EMMS: There may be applications, what concerns me is that for a long time the solar aquatics system was promoted by the Municipality of Annapolis County, unfortunately, as the solution to everybody's problems. Well, it isn't. It was the solution to that problem, it may be a solution to other problems but each need for wastewater treatment, each community need is unique and different in itself and should be analysed without generalities.
MR. EPSTEIN: Is there an analysis of the cost and of the energy implications at your website.
MR. EMMS: No.
MR. EPSTEIN: Where can we get them?
MR. EMMS: I can get the information.
MR. EPSTEIN: It would be very useful to have this information and I think other communities that might be thinking about it, communities of the same size as Bear River throughout the province or even subsets of the HRM I think would find it very useful to have the details of your experience . ..
MR. EMMS: Many of them have it.
MR. EPSTEIN: That is great, but to make it more generally available would be very useful. You said earlier about the quality of the effluent that came out, can you just tell us what the standard is?
MR. EMMS: Our licence to operate - and you have to recognize that at the present time in Nova Scotia there are no across-the-board standards for sewage effluent, each plant is operated under a licence and within the licence the effluent standard is specified - our specification for Bear River is what we call a 20-20 effluent, 20 milligrams per litre of suspended solids and 20 milligrams per litre of BOD. We operate that plant so that statistically if everything is working, we run between 15 and 20. We can do 6, but it costs more and there is no benefit.
MR. EPSTEIN: Have you an experience of solar aquatics in the context of industrial effluent?
MR. EMMS: No.
MR. EPSTEIN: Not yet. Okay.
MR. EMMS: No, and I would be quite concerned, particularly with the plant life. You start to get into some chemical toxins. I know we had a serious problem with salt, for example. Since the solar aquatics plant was developed there has been a complete change in the flora in the plant. The plants that were originally supplied with the process were all killed by salt. Everybody's well in Bear River is intruded by salt water and so our sewage has an extremely high salt concentration.
MR. EPSTEIN: Did the establishment of the plant go hand in hand with any education program aimed at householders?
MR. EMMS: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: The reason I ask you is that, of course, or the wastewater from households can include a variety of chemicals, cleansers, or anything.
MR. EMMS: Actually, the requirements were limited. Bear River is the only community in Annapolis County where our council has made the connection to the sewage system mandatory. In other serviced areas it is a voluntary thing. If you have a septic tank disposal field system that works, fine. We are going to charge you the annual operating fee whether you are connected or not, but you are actually not obligated to connect. In Bear River the residents are obligated to connect.
The need to preach and educate on water conservation was not necessary. Again, Bear River is an area where the water quality is pretty bad, and in the summer somewhat rare. So people have naturally developed water conservation habits. I originally grew up in a rural environment. I lived in urban environments for a number of years and now I am back in the rural environment so I have changed all my patterns again, but I can remember when I was a youngster, our well dried up every year. When we brushed our teeth, we didn't leave the tap running. You didn't run and throw water all over the place. It is a resource, you valued it and treated it as if it had value. People in Bear River are like that anyway.
MR. EPSTEIN: I was thinking about contaminants. I wonder, were people advised about not putting particular contaminants into the system?
MR. EMMS: No. Generally, within the residential areas we have had very few problems with materials that our systems are unable to cope with being dumped in. In our industrial areas we do have some problems, but they are being coped with.
MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you.
MR. CHIPMAN: Laurie, when you mentioned the discharge from the Bear River solar aquatics facility going into the tidal estuary, it brought to mind Annapolis County and Kings County, that all the sewage seems to run into the river and in Halifax Harbour, is it
necessary, is there any other assistance out there that we don't have to have water as a carrier?
MR. EMMS: No, unless you live in southern Alberta. We used to have a tremendous opportunity in southern Alberta, where the evaporation rate was between three and four feet of water per year and we used to build these massive waste stabilization ponds like Bridgetown's, only bigger, without outfalls. They would fill up with sewage in the winter and in the summer it would all evaporate. It was tremendous. We don't have that opportunity here.
MR. CHIPMAN: Perhaps you could explain the situation in Annapolis Royal, the town, the proposal they have?
MR. EMMS: I hate to speak on behalf of the town.
MR. CHIPMAN: No, no, just . . .
MR. EMMS: Annapolis Royal has proposed, in conjunction with Ducks Unlimited, to develop a wetland and they want to take the treated sewage from the lagoon and dump it in the wetland and so on. (Interruption) That is right. We in Annapolis County have very specific opinions on the issue. It is not really our business. What the Annapolis Town Council wants to do, when they come and ask us for our 50 per cent because we contribute significantly to the load on the sewage plant. Our communities of Granville Ferry and Lequille both dump their sewage into the Annapolis Royal system and we characteristically carry about one-half their operating costs and one-half of their capital costs on sewage system upgrading.
We have our opinions as users of, and financial contributors to the system as to what they should do with the wetlands, but at this point we are not voicing opinions. We want to see what the people in Annapolis Royal want to do. It would be inappropriate for us to influence it.
MR. CHIPMAN: One of the factors behind this, isn't it to get rid of the trace elements, to have cattails . . .
MR. EMMS: Right.
MR. CHIPMAN: More so than the sewage, it is mainly the trace elements or that is part of the plan?
MR. EMMS: There are several reasons we feel that the Town of Annapolis Royal wants to proceed. Like I say, we will wait and see what shakes out over the next few months and conduct ourselves accordingly.
MR. CHIPMAN: No, I had had a call about it and I wasn't that familiar with it other than they were going to have a wetland.
MR. EMMS: Wetland's technology is not new. It has been around for awhile and certainly it is pretty hard to argue about the preservation and development of aquatic environments and habitats for water fowl and other wildlife. We need it. Whether that is the right place or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we will give the last word to Mr. Boudreau.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, I realize from one of us there at the table that each situation is unique. The process for peat moss is being used in some situations in Cape Breton. Do you have any knowledge of this and is it successful?
MR. EMMS: I have seen it. I have heard about it. I guess from my perspective there isn't enough factual information available yet to say how valid the process is for treating wastes, and for what purpose in terms of a discharge. It certainly has potential and I think it warrants examination and testing. We need technological options and the trick is we have got to decide what constitutes an acceptable and what constitutes an unacceptable option before we go out and check them. There is a tremendous tendency to not establish those guidelines and then to warp them in the end so that they fit; warp our standards so that they fit our conclusions. Let's set some standards.
MR. BOUDREAU: I agree.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacAskill would like to pull rank on Mr. Boudreau.
MR. MACASKILL: Mr. Emms, a couple of things you said about solar aquatic, it is expensive and it is not environmentally friendly.
MR. EMMS: There is a high energy consumption.
MR. MACASKILL: So it is not something that we can learn from and develop a more efficient and more environmentally friendly . . .
MR. EMMS: We are doing an energy audit on it right now to try to figure out why this primary power bill is so high. We have an interesting public works operation in Annapolis County. It is oriented towards continuous quality improvement and the hardest thing they have to do is to keep them from fiddling with things that work. They want to make them better all the time and I know they are down there. They have built a couple of prototype clarifiers, secondary settling tanks that we are trying out there. Our operator years ago used to experiment with different types of fish in the tanks there. We are constantly trying things. We can't take the risk of making big changes, but we like to fiddle with little changes. The
trick is to make a little change, sit, collect information until you can have enough information to know the effect of that change.
For example, one of the things we are doing, frankly, is removing plants. From a manpower perspective, one of the more expensive aspects of operating and maintaining that plant, is harvesting. That place has to be harvested eight times a year. I thought cutting my lawn was bad, but whew. It's interesting because we found an operator in British Columbia who has a similar plant, and he doesn't harvest anything. He let's it just run wild. Now his plant doesn't have the public visibility that ours has. If you are going to have people walking up and looking at your plant and their perception of how good a job you do is in part formed by how good a housekeeping job you do in your plant. I mean, if you just let it run wild, people will walk away with a negative impression. So if you are going to have a public plant, you've got to make it look pretty.
MR. MACASKILL: On the outfall in the wetlands, we believe there is no monitoring of outfalls in the province. Would Ducks Unlimited allow us to outfall into a wetland without some sort of monitoring?
MR. EMMS: The Nova Scotia Department of the Environment requires monitoring of all outfalls.
MR. MACASKILL: Do they? On what basis . . .
MR. EMMS: Yes. We probably got one of the last permits that was issued without mandatory testing, although we didn't need a permit stipulation to cause us to do that, but the province now stipulates permits for wastewater treatment plants, specific frequency of testing and the types of tests that have to be done. I think we escaped with the last one that didn't have that in there in Nictaux. We do it anyway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boudreau, you've been indicating you want a 10 second . . .
MR. BOUDREAU: Just very briefly, my request is in order for me to keep my credibility here with this committee. Just a yes or no answer. Is it fair to say that we have already learned from Bear River?
MR. EMMS: Yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, on behalf of the committee, Mr. Emms, and also Mr. Lloyd, I certainly thank you very much. I guess you've noted that we had a very interesting conversation and I would say a great meeting and presentation. You've given us a lot to think
about and talk about in the future. We certainly look forward to dealing with you and working with you in the future. So, again, thank you so much.
MR. EMMS: Thank you for the opportunity. I am pleased to hear the questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. EMMS: The purpose is to generate a little discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Before we dissolve the meeting, I would just ask the other members who are here, would it be acceptable if we moved the February 1st meeting to 1:00 p.m. It would work better for the Forest Products Association; 1:00 p.m to 3:00 p.m. then for that meeting. We will get a notice out to you. Okay, then, if there is nothing else, we will adjourn to that date. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
[The committee adjourned at 10:59 a.m.]
