To the editor,
Re: "Curious questions about a seriously dirty problem" by Howard Wilson, June 5
After reading Mr. Wilson's circuitous letter, I wasn't quite sure what the main point or question was. He writes about cleaning up the “mess” at Boat Harbour. Then let’s deal with Boat Harbour.
Boat Harbour is the industrial treatment facility (present day configuration dates from 1972) for the liquid effluent from the Northern Pulp kraft pulp mill at Abercrombie Point. What messy part of the treatment facility does Mr. Wilson want cleaned?
From 1988 to 1993, I spent five years of my life learning about the operation of Boat Harbour – studying thousands of pages of documents, studies, reports, maps, blueprints, test results, etc., and talking to engineers, maintenance personnel and facility management. I spent another five years studying the kraft pulping process at the pulp mill – documenting the operation, function and use of every pipe, every pump, and every tank.
So, here are some facts I know. Boat Harbour is no longer the environmental nightmare of the 1970s and the 1980s. Today, it is one of the best run kraft pulping effluent treatment facilities in Canada – and one of the top 10 in North America. Can you go swimming or fishing in Boat Harbour. Of course not, for heaven’s sake, just like you can't go swimming or fishing in the sewage treatment ponds in Trenton at the ERECC.
Boat Harbour's effluent discharge is regulated by law – the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act. Boat Harbour operates at about 10 per cent of what the law allows! (Can anyone name an industrial operation in Nova Scotia that operates with a better percentage than that?) To my knowledge from researching documentation, the facility has never failed the Rainbow Trout acute toxcity test since 1996!
From an ecological perspective, I have two major issues with Boat Harbour. First, in 1993, I recommended the removal of the berm blocking the return to tidal of the stabilization basin of Boat Harbour (what we know as Boat Harbour proper). There were plans to replace the berm with a bridge (as there was prior to 1972). It never happened because some stakeholders wanted 100 per cent risk-free guarantees. But to clean up any legacy degradation, this must be opened up to tidal flow.
Second, the facility must buy electricity to run its aerators. It costs roughly three-quarters of a million dollars to buy environmentally dirty power to properly oxygenate the effluent. This is, I suppose, a necessary negative at this time that hopefully can be significantly reduced.
It is unfortunate that the Boat Harbour memories of a large number of people are locked in a 1970s time capsule. I do remember being out at Boat Harbour then – eyes burning, coughing uncontrollably, gagging and vomiting. But that was then, it is not now. (I spent half a day out there recently.)
Bob Christie
RR2 Trenton
