Sewage treatment order ill-advised
Letter signed by 10 Marine Scientists
(See also below press reports).
Published December 12th Victoria News
In 2006 the provincial government ordered the Capital Regional District to develop a plan for sewage treatment to replace the present system which has source control for some substances followed by discharge of the screened effluent into the ocean. Much of the justification for this order stemmed from concern about the potential impact of the discharges on the marine ecosystem.
The 10 marine scientists authoring this letter are all committed to the protection of the marine environment but do not see any urgent need for land-based treatment. We would place it low on a list of marine environmental priorities.
A brief discussion of many relevant issues is available at www.rstv.ca/marine-scientists-review/. Here we present a summary of some of the analyses presented there. A comparative analysis of the environmental damage that would be associated with land-based treatment is needed but will not be presented here.
As in many areas of science, some uncertainty exists. In such a situation, erring on the side of caution is wise, particularly where the damage might be severe or irreversible.
However, as summarized in many reviews (including the one by external experts from the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), monitoring programs and basic considerations have given no indication of severe, or even moderate, harm to the marine environment from Victoria’s effluent discharges and it is unlikely that any irreversible harm is being done. Further monitoring and research should be adequate to identify real problems, if any exist or could occur in the future. Optimum solutions could then be applied.
An important reason for treating sewage in many locations is that, if discharged untreated, it can greatly reduce the water’s oxygen content. This happens as biological processes break down either organic material in the effluent or the marine algae that can grow as a consequence of the added nutrients.
Off Victoria, there is some oxygen depletion in the sediments immediately around the outfalls, but not in the water column itself because the strong tidal currents mix the water vertically and keep it well charged with oxygen.
Moreover, the extra nutrient input seems not to promote more growth of marine algae because the nutrient concentrations supplied by natural mixing and estuarine processes are already high enough to permit maximum growth rates.
Dissolved metals in the sewage are another potential problem. However, the lack of heavy industry in Victoria, combined with the CRD’s successful “source control” program that greatly reduces or eliminates the discharge of things like mercury from dentists’ offices, means that the dissolved metal discharges from Victoria are relatively small.
To be sure, metals can be found in bottom sediments around the outfalls, but much of this is attributable to other sources or past disposal practices. Furthermore, the marine biota near the outfalls seem to be unaffected by the metals (although the organic material in the effluent has changed the mix of species living in the sediments within a radius of about 100 metres).
Marine life around Victoria’s outfalls also seems to be unaffected by other discharged substances, including prescription and non-prescription drugs and personal care products, partly because they are rapidly diluted to extremely low concentrations.
Further research and case-by-case analyses are required, but this would be the case even if land-based treatment were introduced, because some human-made chemicals would not be removed by secondary treatment on land and others enter the ocean mainly from other sources, such as run-off and via the atmosphere.
There is justifiable concern about persistent organic chemicals that can be concentrated by marine organisms. A prime example is PCBs (very largely from sources other than Victoria’s outfalls). These are found at possibly dangerous levels in killer whales, although levels are slowly declining following a ban on PCB use in Canada since 1977.
A new threat comes from the persistent flame retardants (PBDEs) widely used in computers and furnishings, with up to 50 per cent entering the coastal ocean via wastewater discharges. Part of this fraction could be removed by sewage treatment (possibly leading to other problems with the disposal of contaminated sludge), but large amounts would continue to enter the ocean via secondary-treatment effluent, rivers and the atmosphere.
Banning the use of PBDEs is likely to be the only effective solution.
Other issues of concern, such as human pathogens, the surfacing of the sewage plume or buoyant oil and grease and the possible flux of contaminants back into the Strait of Georgia, are reviewed at the website mentioned above. None of these issues appears to present a significant problem for the marine environment.
The Victoria sewage issue raises the bigger question of priorities in protecting the marine environment.
The 1994 report of the British Columbia and Washington State Marine Science Panel attached the highest priority to issues such as habitat protection, where current practices do seem to be leading to severe and largely irreversible damage. (See www.psat.wa.gov/shared/bcwaswl.html for a summary of the report.)
In our judgment, Victoria’s current sewage disposal practice is a relatively minor issue. If marine environmental protection is the goal, then much greater benefits could be achieved through a variety of other innovative actions.
Peter M. Chapman, Ph.D., Golder Associates Ltd., aquatic ecologist, ecotoxicologist and environmental risk assessor
Jay Cullen, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, UVic, chemical oceanographer
John Dower, Ph.D., Associate Professor, UVic, biological oceanographer
Chris Garrett, Ph.D., Lansdowne Professor, Ocean Physics, UVic, physical oceanographer
Jack Littlepage, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, UVic, marine biologist
Rob Macdonald, Ph.D., Research Scientist, IOS, chemical oceanographer
Tim Parsons, Ph.D., O.C., Professor Emeritus, UBC, biological oceanographer
Tom Pedersen, Ph.D., Dean of Science, UVic, marine geochemist
Rick Thomson, Ph.D., Research Scientist, IOS, physical oceanographer
Diana Varela, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, UVic, biological oceanographer
Sewage plans flawed, say scientists
Black News Group papers
December 12, 2007
Effects of pumping raw sewage into ocean minimal, other problems more serious.
A group of prominent local scientists, business people and former politicians is urging the province to put the brakes on orders to build a sewage treatment system costing an estimated $1.2 billion for Greater Victoria.
The 88-member group wants the provincial government and the Capital Regional District to allow for an objective analysis of the reports the Ministry of Environment based its order upon, and of the ministry’s rationale for calling for treatment when those reports did not specify an urgent need to go that route.
"If your goal is to protect the marine environment, land-based treatment is not a high priority," says Prof. Chris Garrett, a University of Victoria-based ocean physicist and spokesperson for the scientists among the group.
Based on the available information detailing the effects the current system is having on local marine and human life, he said, there are far more pressing issues affecting the marine ecosystem. Among them are the loss of habitat due to development pressures and the spread of invasive, non-native species.
Having been ordered by the province to pursue land-based secondary treatment rather than continue to pump screened, but untreated sewage into Juan de Fuca Strait, the CRD is moving forward, albeit begrudgingly.
The most recent amendment to the CRD’s liquid waste management plan – it includes overarching, if not specific, strategies to deal with the high-profile issue – is expected to be either approved or rejected later this month by the provincial Ministry of Environment.The scientists, who include some of the leading minds on the topic in Greater Victoria and in fact, the West Coast, aren’t keen on wading into political discussions over jurisdiction or motives, Garrett said.
They are serious in their belief that both arguments need to be put out there to be analyzed objectively, especially with such a large capital outlay and significant annual operating costs looming for taxpayers.
"Our primary motivation is that science is being misrepresented," said Dr. Jay T. Cullen, assistant professor at UVic’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences. "If the decision to treat is made, people need to know what they can expect in terms of improving the marine environment."
CRD chair Denise Blackwell has been part of studies into this issue for almost a decade.
The CRD has been telling people for years, she said, that land-based treatment is not needed yet, but the environment must be monitored closely.
The CRD, which would be required to pay one third of the cost of the project – about $400 million – expects to receive word back from the province later this month on its amended liquid waste management plan. A stumbling block for the regional district has been its provision of strict timelines on when sewage treatment would be instituted. While the CRD hoped to use a triggering system as a base for action toward treatment, the province has asked for more concrete plans.Randy Alexander, the province’s regional manager for environmental protection, stressed the need to get started soon building a system that will be required eventually anyway.
"The impacts are occurring now, so it is very important to begin the planning process now because it takes a long time and the longer you wait, the more it costs," he said.
Bob Wheaton, the lead non-scientist in the dissenting group, acknowledged that the biggest battle to be waged on the issue is one of public perception.
The world-wide notoriety of Mr. Floatie – UVic student James Skwarok, dressed as a giant cartoon-like stool, rallied publicly against the practice of dumping raw sewage into the ocean – caught off guard the opponents of waiting to institute sewage treatment, he said.And with the provincial government working hard to present a good face to the world during the 2010 Olympics, he wonders whether optics are playing a part in the whole discussion.
"The whole premise of this is ill-founded," Wheaton said. "If it is a public relations exercise, call it what it is."
Marine scientists question politics behind numbers
Black News group
December 12, 2007
Group set out to get facts straight.
The province is dangerously pushing Victoria’s $1.2-billion secondary sewage treatment plan based on studies which never went to peer review, say a group of marine scientists.
In July 2006, Environment Minister Barry Penner ordered the Capital Regional District to come up with a liquid waste plan after saying the scientific scales tipped in favour of secondary treatment.
But Jay Cullen, University of Victoria’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences assistant professor, noted Penner’s conclusion is premised on environmental reports – the provincially commissioned MacDonald Environmental Services study and the CRD commissioned Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) report – which never went past their original drafters.Scientific literature is built around peer reviews, Cullen said. Reports that have been under scientific review panel’s eyes hold more weight, he said.
"The public in general should know that science that is being used for policy making decisions represents what the scientific community feels is the most accurate science available," Cullen said.
A peer review would remove the fuzziness on what the reports’ mean, said Chris Garrett, University of Victoria professor of ocean physics.
Garrett said neither report points to the need for secondary treatment.
He believes the sewage treatment bill would more wisely be spent in other areas, such as marine conservation.
But Randy Alexander, the Ministry of Environment’s Vancouver Island regional manager of environmental protection, said the facts are straight forward and backs the need for secondary treatment.
The longer the district or province dragged its feet on a plan, the more money both parties would eventually have to dish out, Alexander warned.
"I think the scientific evidence is very clear that it is time for the CRD to plan for sewage treatment," he said. "It takes many years to implement sewage treatment."
Alexander added a peer review of the MacDonald report would have been highly irregular practice, as it was an internal report intended to assess comparisons of standards against data.
Denise Blackwell, CRD chairwoman, defended the SETAC report saying she sees the document itself as a peer review of data collected by the district.
Blackwell agrees with Garrett that SETAC never indicated secondary treatment was a necessity at the moment.
"The scientific data we were getting was telling us there was no need to do sewage treatment," Blackwell said.
The SETAC report mirrored the district’s findings but stated Greater Victoria was going to have to take a political stance, Blackwell said, one in the end the province made.
"It is basically more a political decision, quite frankly people probably got tired of having to deal with Mr. Floatie," Blackwell said.
Sewage issue worth revisiting
Editorial - Victoria News - December 12th 2007
A group of well-researched, highly-placed scientists and other professionals addressed the News recently, getting our attention with clearly well thought out concerns over the lack of objective, professional input in the province’s decision to force the Capital Regional District to pursue secondary, land-based sewage treatment.
In this instance, the mere weight of their knowledge and broad-based experience in the field leads us to believe they must be taken seriously when they say the region doesn’t need secondary treatment at this time, especially for the gargantuan price of $1.2 billion or more.
This isn’t simply some run-of-the-mill taxpayers’ group grumbling about their money being spent willy-nilly.
Prof. Chris Garrett and other members of the UVic faculty of science who lent their names and expertise to the cause have kept a low profile until now. Once the true effects of the current system were compared to the net difference of releasing treated sewage into Juan de Fuca Strait, the feeling, Garrett added, was that politicians at all levels would do the right thing and spend the money on more pressing marine environmental problems.
The province argues that a gradual worsening effect on marine life and human health indicates that it’s only a matter of time before treatment will be needed, thus, why not start now to save on the cost of building in the future.
From a financial standpoint, there is a certain amount of logic in that argument. But given the cost estimates being tossed around for such a project, we believe it behooves the province – the CRD, mindful of the science and its own fiscal realities, seems a rather reluctant participant in the plan – to investigate further the science available to help them reach a sound decision.
In a Nov. 28 presentation to the CRD’s liquid waste management committee, Dr. Shaun Peck, the former regional medical health officer and spokesman for Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria, noted that the CRD’s 2006 marine monitoring report found the current practice of discharging liquid waste – it is said to be 99.97 per cent water – through two deep sea outfalls, following screening and being subject to a “world-class source control program,” creates “minimal environmental impact.”
Those appalled at our pumping sewage into the ocean have made up their minds that we need to do something about Victoria’s “dirty little secret.” We worry that relatively few in that camp are basing their opinion on appropriate scientific data. The sad part is that others have come to their conclusions based on positions advanced in the media by organizations with paid marketing staff whose job it is to disseminate the stance of their employers in as convincing fashion as possible.
When it comes to spending huge amounts of money on a treatment system, given the province’s order, we believe all viewpoints should be investigated fully, with the current system included in any analysis.