“It has become very
evident that in the absence of a mechanism to measure the primary outcome of
interest (human
health) with at least some degree of sensitivity and accuracy, it is virtually
impossible to
assess the “purity” or “safety” of drinking water using available water
parameter
measuring devices.
A turbidity reading of 0.05 or 0.1 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), or the
detection of 1 Cryptosporidium
oocyst/1000L
of water has very little public health meaning if
incidences of
waterborne infections among individuals consuming the water are unknown. It is
only when levels of
human illness are associated with various water quality parameters or water
treatment
characteristics, that it will be possible to make significant advances in
reducing
waterborne
disease.” - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/bch_pubs/gvdr-a.pdf
Drinking
Water Quality and Health Care Utilization for Gastrointestinal Illness in
Greater Vancouver – Oct 30/2000
“(1)
significant levels of endemic (day-to-day) gastroenteritis events are
potentially waterborne in
nature, (2) watershed protection together
with chlorination may not adequately protect against the
waterborne transmission of enteric pathogens,
and (3) turbidity appears to be a valuable water quality
indicator.” - Drinking
Water Quality and Health Care Utilization for Gastrointestinal Illness in
Greater Vancouver
Ø
Should meet ISO 9002 certification for a Drinking Water Quality
Management System
Ø
Consideration of impact on environment and receiving waters
Ø
Residual Aluminum levels – should be less than Health Canada
Guidelines of 0.1mg/Litre
Ø
Current and proposed mg/Litre hardness
Ø
Should meet Canadian Guidelines - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/main/hc/web/ehp/ehd/catalogue/bch_pubs/summary.pdf
Ø
That a substantial part of tunneled material will be trucked up
“mainline” Rd. in Cap.
Ø
Are the cost increases of filtration in line with US EPA
estimated that “Surface Water Treatment Rule” will cost the vast majority less
than $1/month extra (see http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/mdbp/ieswtr.html
) – why such high costs here?
Ø
Marquette’s Water Filtration Plant – see http://www.ftch.com/publications/more_marquette.htm
Ø
City of Mackinac Island – see http://www.ftch.com/publications/more_mackinac.htm
Ø
Revelstoke Experience see http://www.cityofrevelstoke.com/public-works/fastrack-toc.htm
and http://www.cityofrevelstoke.com/public-works/water-presentation/toc.htm
Ø
About 50% of new water treatments plants in North America use
membranes for treatment process
Ø
West Vancouver launched Eagle Lake Water Filtration Project -
$80,000 pilot study
Questions
to be asked:
1.
That this facility is supposed to bring our water treatment up
to the highest standards in Canada and therefore is critical to our future.
Will it? See #2. Capilano water will
likely be pumped to Seymour for filtration and the existing plans will have to
be modified.
2.
According to the
consulting engineer for Epcor this project is a relatively low tech affair and
not as advanced as the Port Hardy facility. The GVRD did not visit or contact
the Port Hardy installation. Why?
3.
The GVRD did not shortlist for this project a Canadian
company(Epcor of Edmonton) which built the Port Hardy filtration system as well
as many others around the world. They had a design, construction and operation
team that included an American consultant who has experience on over l00
international projects. The GVRD downgraded the Canadian company deliberately
(fact) in order to favour the bigger multi-nationals. Then they implied the
Canadian company did not have the "international experience." They
also claimed Epcor did not have the financial capability of the multi-nationals
when in fact Epcor has $2.1 billion in assets and numerous projects through
Canada. Further, one of the evaluators of the Epcor proposal(Associated
Engineering) was found to be participating on one of the competitor teams. This
issue of conflict of interest and others involving political interference by
the GVRD apparently will be taken up with the Canadian Council of
Public-Private Partnerships on the grounds that the GVRD did not follow
conventional fairness rules.
4.
Another issue. Why are we not training Canadian operators
at the third stage? Design-build is quite common throughout the world and many
plants have their own operators trained by the company who did the design work.
Port Hardy is an example of such a plant. Others in Canada, Africa. Thus with
Canadian capital(GVRD is borrowing), Canadian expertise in design(Epcor) and
build(Walter Construction) and Canadian-trained operators, there is no need for
multi-nationals with their headquarters anywhere from San Francisco to Paris to
London to be involved!
5.
The GVRD is promoting the idea that international technology is
involved(bunk) and therefore we should have Americans build this really low
level tech project. Contradiction? Bye the bye, I intend to ask the GVRD reps
at the June 28 meeting about these questions. And one more. Who built and
operated in space the Canada arm? Really, this matter needs exposing and many
groups and individuals are doing just that.