Comments? Email

princerupert.com

NorthCoast's Regional Information Site

DISASTER SCENARIO PRETENDED AWAY

Dating from July 1991 newspaper article by LG

Prince Rupert's plan to extend three raw sewage outfalls has produced a typical environmental debate. It will "kill the harbour" Is met with "It worked in Victoria". No one likes polarized disputes. People one respects become adversaries. Still in a democracy it’s a necessary evil. Informed choices are needed.

All agree on the goal.: a healthy harbour .All may accept BC Environments 'recreational water management objective' i.e. <200 enteric coliform bacteria/ l00 ml. at least as a first step.

For sake of discussion let's pretend the proponents have done an. adequate oceanographic Survey of the harbour.

We have provided the City with a design manual for submarine sewer outfalls dated 1986. This manual details for officials the min1mum oceanographic information required; cautions sanitation engineers against dumping sewage below a thermocline. Warns to do so only after exhaustive current measurements at thermocline's depth

Let's pretend the documentation In Long Range Plan (1977) mistaken: That the harbour not stratified year round.

Thus similar to Porpoise Basin at Port Edward. (where pulp mill installed a 30 meter deep outfall in 1978). It's mixed top to bottom every tide due to the basin’s size and shape (shallow sills at either end).

Let's pretend that we know outfall I works. Built in early 1980's at depth 64m as part of 1977 Plan. Luckily the 1982 recession halted the work ;.

Available data inconclusive but high coliform counts ( 1600 at surface, mid, and bottom) suggest Inadequate dilution during summer .

Let's further pretend that we know harbour flushing action (pun intended) can take more deep outfalls.

Port Ed's deep outfall diluted a BOD loading (what the units mean doesn't matter here) equivalent to 30% total sewage from Lower -Mainland's GVRD .Yet there was only a slight decrease in water column dissolved oxygen. The stuff got whisked away. fast. (Note: the same could be said for 1950s' "taller smokestacks" strategy for pollution control; and its unintended contribution to acid rain.)

We have now 'pretended away' the environmentalists' disaster scenario. What's left is the basic assumptions behind the 1977 Plan and its 1990 Revision:

"The 3 deep outfalls are not only cheaper In short run, but a step towards sewage treatment"'.

The Pulp mill’s a good example. Once It went to advanced treatment the deep outfall could only enhance results.

But will a city the size of Prince Rupert ever require three sewage treatment plants (STP)? The GVRD has 4.

Realistically we can afford one.

Judging from conversations with experts familiar with harbour .I predict that only B outfall may be environmentally acceptable: (coarser bottom sediments here imply stronger currents than the fine muds farther down the harbour) .

This suggests the STP will be located below the Second Avenue bridge at Morse Creek (site chosen in 1977 Plan along with Hays Ck near 11^th Ave; and Seal Cove.)

Excuse me for being impolite. but won't an STP stink? Won't It make 'Perfume de Pulp Mill' seem refreshing? Bird watchers love Vancouver’s Iona Island, everyone else gives it a wide berth.

Ask your City Councillors If they support a STP in residential areas. If they think this is a good $5 million investment.

Then request 311 environmental review that seriously considers alternatives.

I can hear the sanitary engineer types saying "we'll never need a STP, deep outfalls are sufficient". "STP is an emotional reaction by an ill informed public".

Diffusers are wonderful gadgets when used correctly. (The Port Edward pulp m1lls worked; the one at Port Alice killed fish by depleting oxygen in bottom waters) .But at best they can achieve l000X dilutions. (The City's consultants used 200-300X figure). Sounds impressive until you learn that normal sewage (Victoria's data) has 5,000,000 enteric coliform per 100 ml.

Diffusers on deep outfalls can't be the answer. Dilution is not a solution. Beaches will still be polluted if currents or back eddies bring the plume onto shore. As BC's Ministry of Environment's 200l Strategic Directions paper states: "(the) long-term goal Is to achieve zero emission (of pollutants) into the receiving environment".

There's the real solution. The choice is clear

 

 

 

NATURE Sea, land, river

ECONOMY Regional

PLACE Books+

PEOPLES Community

REALTY Coming soon