To: Randall Meades
Director General
Public and Resources Sectors Directorate
Environment Canada
By Email to: ww-eu@ec.gc.ca
Proposed Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations
The following comments are submitted in response to the Canada Gazette, Part I dated March 11th 2010
They are based on my 26 years experience as a public health physician (including six years as the Medical Health Officer for British Columbia’s Capital Regional District (the CRD) and eight years as Deputy Provincial Health Officer for the Province of British Columbia). During this time I have observed and commented on the most appropriate sewage treatment for the CRD. My comments are also based on extensive discussions with and input from economists, other public health officials, marine scientists and civil (sewage system) engineers.
My comments relate primarily to marine receiving environments and particularly to the engineered deep sea outfalls with multi-port diffusers currently used to treat waste water effluent naturally at Victoria, BC.
The following is stated in the preamble (all quotes from the Gazetted discussion proposal are in italics):
These standards represent a secondary level of wastewater treatment or equivalent. The objective of the proposed Regulations is to reduce the risks to ecosystem health, fisheries resources and human health by decreasing the level of harmful substances deposited to Canadian surface water from wastewater effluent.
Comment: Based upon the extensive study of Victoria’s marine receiving environment conducted over the last 30 years it is the judgement of six Public Health Officials, including the undersigned, that there is no measurable public health impact from the current discharge. In addition, ten marine scientists have indicated that there is a minimal effect on the marine environment. Their latest findings have been published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin56(2008)1815-1816 www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul. This is attached as a separate file.
Cost-benefit statement: A cost-benefit analysis reveals that the proposed Regulations would likely result in significant net benefits nationally, even with only a partial quantification of benefits. While the estimated costs of the proposal are significant (in the order of $5.9 billion in discounted 2010 dollars), the overall quantified benefits are almost three times this amount, totaling $17.6 billion. This results in a benefit to cost ratio of almost 3:1 for the country as a whole.
There are numerous benefits to improved wastewater effluent quality. These include healthier fish and aquatic ecosystems, increased recreational use, higher property values, reduced health risks from recreational contact with and consumption of fish, reduced water supply costs for municipalities and industry, increased commercial fisheries use, and increased value placed on ecosystem and water quality by individuals and house-holds for the benefit of both current and future generations.
Comment: There will be no cost-benefit for Victoria’s expenditure of what will almost certainly exceed $1 Billion because of its marine receiving environment. The cost-benefit study carried out for CCME focused on such issues as the safety of drinking water which does not apply to a marine receiving environment. The area currently enjoys extensive recreational use and studies have shown no potential human exposure to the plume which is maintained below the surface of the water except for a few occasions in winter months. Victoria already has the some of the highest property values in the country. There are federally mandated beach closures around the Victoria coast based on the presence of marine outfalls regardless of their level of treatment in order to offer maximum protection for shell fish harvesting. The closures along the Victoria waterfront are the result of beach contamination by storm water drains not the deep sea outfalls. These conditions will not change with the construction of a secondary treatment facility. The above benefits described just do not apply to the Victoria situation.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans closes shellfish harvesting in the vicinity of any sewage outfall, even with secondary treatment and they are expected to continue to close shellfish harvesting in any urban area which is contaminated with storm water drainage.
There are many benefits that cannot be quantified with the available information, such as the impact of increased access to shellfish harvesting areas or the impacts of local tourism. Thus, the total benefits are expected to be even higher than those presented here.
Comment: As previously stated there will not be any increase in permitted shellfish harvesting as the shoreline will continue to be contaminated by the storm water drains.
The impact on Victoria’s tourism industry should be considered marginal, although it may have been affected to a minor degree by adverse publicity from Washington State. A review of this issue can be found at: http://rstv.squarespace.com/harm-to-ocean-based-industry-a/
In terms of competitiveness impacts, improved water quality from the proposed Regulations would result in a number of benefits: improvements in water quality would be expected to have a positive impact on the fishing and seafood industry, valued at $5 billion in 2005; it would serve to reduce contaminant-related harvest closures in the shellfish industry, valued at $1.5 billion in 2008; and it could help remove barriers to markets for seafood, e.g. mussel exports from Eastern Canada. Benefits would also likely include fewer beach closures and an increased ability of Canadians and visitors to enjoy water-based recreation throughout Canada. This would positively impact the tourism industry, which represents approximately 2% of Canada’s GDP.
Comment: Please see the above two comments.
The proposed Regulations could enhance coordination between Canada and the United States with respect to transboundary water quality. This would be especially true in the Great Lakes, where Canada and the United States are party to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which includes commitments for both countries to cooperate on the clean up of industrial effluent and wastewater effluent.
Sawyer, D., Chung, L., and S. Renzetti. 2007. “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Cleaner Source Water.” Marbek Resource Consultants.
Comment: The transboundary issue between British Columbia and Washington State was addressed in the 1994 report of the British Columbia/Washington Marine Science Panel. This scientific review concluded that Victoria’s deep sea discharge of screened sewage did not pose any threat to Washington State Waters.
Requirements in other jurisdictions
United States
In the United States, the Clean Water Act requires a minimum of secondary treatment at municipal wastewater treatment plants. In addition, permits are allocated to wastewater treatment facilities, placing limits on discharge and requiring monitoring and reporting.
Comment: It is true that the US Clean Water Act requires a minimum of secondary treatment at municipal wastewater treatment plants. However several marine discharges that have primary treatment such as San Diego and Honolulu have obtained waivers to this requirement.
Further Comment: CLIMATE CHANGE. Environment Canada has been considering the serious issue of Climate Change and Global Warming. This (perhaps surprisingly) has relevance to Victoria’s proposed land based sewage treatment. The CCME did address this. There is compelling science that indicates that Global Warming is occurring and all measures need to be taken to reduce the emission of Green House Gases to the atmosphere to reduce the impact on climate change.
In spite of the fact that offsets are being claimed by the CRD in their present preliminary plan, based on an accepted methodology, there will still be a significant carbon foot print produced by this plan. The emissions will still occur even though offsets may be claimed. The estimated C02e emissions are 40,000 Tonnes per year or 1.6 Million Tonnes over 40 years. The annual emissions, based on one set of calculations, are equivalent to the C02e output by 7,736 automobiles per year.
The CCME position paper on GHG emissions suggests offsets may be obtained. However this does not make sense when the emissions can be prevented in the first place. It makes more sense when addressing existing land based sewage treatment plants.
The Cap and Trade or Carbon Offsets should not be applied in this situation where any emissions can be prevented in the first place. To understand this issue better an excellent film and graphic description is available.
See: http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/
The following comments relate to the proposed regulatory text:
“acutely lethal”, in relation to effluent, means that the effluent at 100% concentration kills more than 50% of the rainbow trout subjected to it during a 96-hour period.
Comment: Scientists have pointed out that the freshwater rainbow trout test is inappropriate for discharges to the marine environment, particularly when there is rapid dilution of the effluent as they will die as a result of salinity, not toxins. There is such rapid and extensive dilution of the fresh water effluent that survivability tests based upon fresh water standards are inappropriate.
The test is conducted in effluent samples taken before end of pipe and has nothing to do with the receiving environment. It’s a useless standard, but it’s useless anywhere. This is an oft-repeated criticism but the test is for some reason much-beloved by regulators.
Acute toxicity should not be a regulated parameter. It should be used as a trigger for toxicity reduction evaluation. Whole effluent (100%) toxicity does not necessarily indicate toxicity in the receiving environment. Toxicity due to ammonia is a good example of this. When typical ammonia levels in municipal wastewater are discharged into marine environments toxicity usually does not result. Toxicity testing should be used as an indicator of a possible problem and steps should be taken to evaluate the cause of the toxicity and the environmental risk. Following the evaluation any corrective measures needed should be implemented. Using toxicity at the end of the pipe to determine whether a facility is in compliance, does not move us forward from the current regulatory environment where wastewater discharges have no certainty under the Fisheries Act.
“final discharge point” means the point, other than an overflow point, of a wastewater system beyond which its owner or operator no longer exercises control over the quality of the wastewater before its deposit as effluent in water or a place.
Comment: This wording needs to be interpreted. When engineers design deep ocean discharges they design them with multi-port diffusers so that there is control over the distribution of effluent in the initial dilution zone around the outfall ports. If this was not done then the effluent would simply be discharged from a pipe end with no intention of using the surrounding environment as the final stage in the engineered treatment process. Therefore the Initial Dilution Zone or IDZ should be considered within the final discharge point.
Percentage of effluent in water
14. (1) The owner or operator of a wastewater system must conduct the environmental effects monitoring studies referred to in paragraph 4(4)(c) in respect of its effluent if the water at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry for the final discharge point is comprised of 10% or more of that effluent.
Comment: The Capital Regional District’s science division has calculated that at 100 Meters from the point of entry there is a minimum dilution of 175:1 at Clover point and 245:1 at Macaulay point.
In conclusion, I would emphasize the following points:
- Historically there has been a mindset with Regulators that
Former US EPA Administrator William K. Reilly once gave an address to Congress titled “Aiming Before We Shoot: The Quiet Revolution in Environmental Policy,” in which he stated: “… I think the time has come to start taking aim before we open fire. In short, we have to find a better way of setting environmental priorities. And this is where sound science comes in. Sound science can help us establish priorities and allocate resources based on risk, to the extent that statutory mandates allow. Obviously there are a number of other important factors that go into shaping our priorities--public values and perceptions, economic constraints--but sound science is our most reliable compass in a turbulent sea of siren songs. Science can lend much-needed coherence, order and integrity to the often costly and controversial decisions that must be made.”
The full address can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/risk/02.htm
I trust the above comments will enable the Government of Canada to take a second look at the proposed Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations prior to their being finalized particularly as they relate to marine receiving environments. All marine discharges should be able to apply for waivers (similar to US practice) if the environmental monitoring indicates a minimal effect on the receiving environment.
Shaun Peck MA MB BChir MSc FRCP (C )
Public Health Consultant
Medical Health Officer CRD 1989-1995
Deputy Provincial Health Officer (BC) 1995-2004
Thursday, April 29, 2010