- Email: [email protected]
Jumblies put out to sea again
Jumblies Put Out to Sea Again The rise of Torbay as a holiday resort area is traditionally attributed to the Napoleonic Wars. The war fleet rode at a sheltered anchorage in the bay, awaiting orders, while the officers' families, lodged at first in fisherman s cottages, and later in specially built villas, found (as
an
~/'~~ •
early guide book claims) that the 'delicate members of
these families gained strength in a manner quite unexpected; that many who at home had been laid up winter after winter with chest infections were able here not only able to escape the dreaded attacks, but instead of being confined to one room for the winter months were out of doors day after day.' However, the combination of sheltered waters, and the legacy of the nineteenth century sewage arrangements which accompanied the rapid development of the area as a watering place, poses a pressing twentieth century problem of pollution. This is an area which depends to a great extent for prosperity on its marine amenities, ranging from (already in vogue in the 1920s under the name of 'boardriding ) to the proposed Underwater Nature Reserve at Saltern Cove, near Brixham. Yet, one small accident, and the very factors which have given the area its importance as a centre for health and recreation, could turn the whole of Torbay into a cess-pool which might remain polluted until the end of the century. The reasons for this situation are two-fold. Firstly, the nineteenth-century-style sewage arrangements, which consist simply of two direct outfall sewers, one for Torquay (constructed 1878) and a joint sewer for Paignton and Brixham (constructed 1934). These discharge directly into the sea, at Hope's Nose and Sharkham Point respectively, without, at present, the benefit of screens, diffusers or macerators. Rather strangely, the Torquay system, was described in the 1923-34 official guidebook as 'sanitary arrangements of the most perfect description', and 'as complete and perfect as it can be made', The sewer itself is said to be 'three-and-a-half miles long', and the impression gained is that this threeand-a-half miles lies underwater. In fact, the Hope's Nose outfall does not discharge into the sea at all, but simply onto the rocks. The Sharkham Point sewer is slightly better sited, with an outfall about 500 feet out. In addition, since there is no separate surface-water drainage system, the main sewers are equipped with storm-water outfalls, for the egress of excess water, mixed with a certain proportion of sewage, into Torquay inner harbour, Torquay new harbour (two outfalls), Brixham harbour, and the resort beaches of Preston Sands and Paignton Sands. The hazard to health and amenity which such a discharge of raw sewage entails would be considerable in any resort area; Torbay, however, has its own peculiar problem--that of the 'sheltered anchorage' which first brought it prosperity. The region has virtually no tidal scour--what comes into the bay, stays there for a considerable time; and the untreated sewage must be dealt with in situ by the appropriate bacteria. But, because of the shelter from wind and tide, and the convenient position of Torbay in relation to the channel ports, it has become a favourite area for super-tankers to off-load their cargoes of oil into smaller tankers which can enter existing harbour installations. A tightrope situation therefore results: sooner or later, there will be some oil-
Torq
Ho0e's Nose
/Preston sands
/
•
{~a" ~ignt°n
TORBAY
water-skiing ~(SalternC°ve %
~
xh~a~m ~ • Bri
,~ ~
f_..~ SharkhamPoint
- ) 1
Major towns and importantlandmarks in the area of Torbay. The black rectangle in the smallermap is is the area illustrated in the figure. spill, which will remain in the bay unless treated by detergent. The detergent will destroy the bacteria, the sewage will remain undegraded, and Torbay will become, in effect, a stagnant cess-pool. The postulated chain is as strong as its weakest link--in this case the safety of oiltransfer procedures. As far as the proposed Underwater Nature Reserve is concerned, the oil hazard is fully recognized by its sponsors. This particular area, although possessing no unique or very rare species, is rich in marine life. The land area of Saltern Cove is already a local Nature Reserve and the idea is to extend the protected area to a quarter-of-a-mile out to sea. (This will, incidentally, involve certain legal complications; the competance of the Nature Conservancy Council ends apparently, at the low water mark.) When questioned about the oil hazard, a spokesman for the project (who wished to remain anonymous) said that, in the event of the oil spill 'which sooner or later must happen', they would wish Saltern Cove to be left untreated. Oil, he maintains, does not destroy marine life--only sea birds--and Saltern Cove could be a valuable starting point for the marine life of Torbay to renew itself. When questioned about the sewage hazard, he affirmed the Saltern Cove project is in no way concerned with the sewage problem. The recently amalgamated Torbay Borough Council has, however, been giving considerable consideration to 147
the sewage problem of the area, and has been considering a number of proposals which they can put forward to the South Western Water Authority, which is now responsible for the ultimate decision. The consultants, John Taylor and Sons, favour adaptation and extention of the existing outfalls. (The spokesman of the firm in this matter, Jack Calvert, took part in the recent International Symposium on Marine Disposal of Sewage at Westminster.) Their plans would involve extending the Hope's Nose and Sharkham Point outfalls to 1,500 m from shore, and fitting of diffusers, macerators and screening devices, This would of course, reduce the aesthetic outrage caused to bathers and boaters by gross untreated sewage; it would not, however, diminish the actual pollution hazards. Float tests carried out from the proposed new discharge points suggest a percentage of sewage returned to shore within a few hours of up to 6.5 ~ from Hopes Nose and 2.5 ~ from Sharkham Point. Since float tests generally give a somewhat optimistic result, these figures must be taken as erring on the underestimation side. As far as the deeper-water hazards are concerned (viz. the pollution of the shell-fisheries and inshore fishing industries which contribute considerably to the economy of the area both as direct producers and as a tourist attraction, and also the doomsday menace of an oil-spill), the new outfalls would make little if any difference. The only advantage would seem to be that of (relative) cheapness. The consultants quote a figure of between £2-3 million. However, the estimate of laying pipes on the seabed must necessarily be a very tentative one, and it seems likely that if this plan were adopted, the cost would be considerably higher. The alternative plan proposed by John Taylor and Sons, but not given their personal recommendation, quotes a cost of £11 million for two treatment plants (one for Torquay, and one for Paignton/Brixham) with the associated pipes and pumping stations. In spite of the cost, this scheme has considerable local backing, and a massive campaign has been launched in its support by the Torbay Trades Council (a Trades' Union body). They advance a number of cogent arguments in favour of treatment plants, ranging from economic spin-offs-the selling of sludge for agricultural purposes, or the use of the methane produced by the plant as a power source for the plant itself--to wider ecological considerations-the possibility of ultimate recycling of water. Their main standpoint, however, is that of pollution--health hazard, aesthetic outrage, the loss of amenity value, the threat to the fisheries. The campaign, which ranges from direct approaches to the relevant official bodies to the grass-roots collection of signatures (conducted on Saturday afternoons in the shopping centres less frequented by tourists) is following the usual course of such campaigns. At this stage, it is impossible to judge its final effectiveness, but Mr. M. F. Healy the campaign organiser indicated an encouraging response, both in signatures to the petition, and in letters from official and quasi-official bodies. Campaigns in defence of local amenities are, of course, nothing new, and on accasion would appear to contain a certain amount of misguided enthusiasm arising from a lack of data and an inability to see the overall picture. What distinguishes this campaign is that it is the campaigners and not the planners who seem to have a better grasp of the facts. In the near future, some action is scheduled 148
for the disposal of sewage in the Torbay area. The consultants recommend extended outfalls and the removal of the more obvious and offensive constituents by screening and maceration. This would give an apparent amenity improvement at a relatively low cost (if the estimate has a sound basis in fact). Usually, one would expect that such an apparent and immediate 'improvement' would satisfy the local population, and it would be the experts who would wish to spend a larger sum to safeguard the ecology. But here we have the reverse case - - i n local opinion, the cheaper solution will not do. What lies behind the paradox of Torbay will probably remain an unsolved mystery of committees and council meetings, a secret beyond the ken of the uninitiated. At a guess, however, one may suggest that somewhere, in the recesses of officialdom, and in the recent amalgamations of planning bodies, there has been some lack of communication. Possibly, the persons who examined the sites of outfalls kept their eyes turned shorewards, and did not wonder about the activity of the tankers? Maybe the experts on the disposal of floodwater on land have lost contact with those who deal with tidal matters ? Presumably the sponsors of the proposed Underwater Nature Reserve assume that all is well with Torbay's waters, and have not noticed, overhead, the increasing flocks of herring gulls--the scavengers whose massive presence is a sure index of untreated waste ? At present, such questions remain academic, an intellectual puzzle to those who find diversion in discussing the vagaries of officialdom. One can only hope that they remain academic, and that the problem of Torbay is solved and rightly solved before the inevitable oil-spill occurs, and the apparent bureaucratic confusion behind the current situation becomes a matter not of farce but of tragedy. VERA RICH
Law of the Sea The Law of the Sea Conference, held in Caracas recently, seems to have ended in a flourish of diplomatic indecision. Delegates failed to agree on any of the fundamental issues facing the Conference. Even the place and time of the next meeting seems to be giving them some trouble. Britain favours Geneva in March, but the old cliche, 'a lot can happen between now and March', seems to be particularly appropriate here. Will the industrial giants of all nations who want to mine the mineral deposits wait for agreement to be reached on what may seem to them the niceties of international law ? Conflict arose in the discussion over national rights in the 'economic zones'. It is still to be decided whether they should extend to 50 or even 200 miles, covering control over mineral as well as fish resources. Britain has refused to agree to the principle that other EEC countries can share oil and gas resources in the continental shelf in the North Sea. Amidst the wrangling, the 'Group of 77', the developing nations, have been attempting to prevent submersion under the power of the advanced nations. The two groups have been divided on the issue of the International Seabed Authority, the proposed administrative body for the enormous area outside even a 200 mile coastal zone. Those who have the technological means to exploit the oceans' vast resources want a 'licence to kill'. Those who have little prospect of direct material gain from the oil
an
~/'~~ •
early guide book claims) that the 'delicate members of
these families gained strength in a manner quite unexpected; that many who at home had been laid up winter after winter with chest infections were able here not only able to escape the dreaded attacks, but instead of being confined to one room for the winter months were out of doors day after day.' However, the combination of sheltered waters, and the legacy of the nineteenth century sewage arrangements which accompanied the rapid development of the area as a watering place, poses a pressing twentieth century problem of pollution. This is an area which depends to a great extent for prosperity on its marine amenities, ranging from (already in vogue in the 1920s under the name of 'boardriding ) to the proposed Underwater Nature Reserve at Saltern Cove, near Brixham. Yet, one small accident, and the very factors which have given the area its importance as a centre for health and recreation, could turn the whole of Torbay into a cess-pool which might remain polluted until the end of the century. The reasons for this situation are two-fold. Firstly, the nineteenth-century-style sewage arrangements, which consist simply of two direct outfall sewers, one for Torquay (constructed 1878) and a joint sewer for Paignton and Brixham (constructed 1934). These discharge directly into the sea, at Hope's Nose and Sharkham Point respectively, without, at present, the benefit of screens, diffusers or macerators. Rather strangely, the Torquay system, was described in the 1923-34 official guidebook as 'sanitary arrangements of the most perfect description', and 'as complete and perfect as it can be made', The sewer itself is said to be 'three-and-a-half miles long', and the impression gained is that this threeand-a-half miles lies underwater. In fact, the Hope's Nose outfall does not discharge into the sea at all, but simply onto the rocks. The Sharkham Point sewer is slightly better sited, with an outfall about 500 feet out. In addition, since there is no separate surface-water drainage system, the main sewers are equipped with storm-water outfalls, for the egress of excess water, mixed with a certain proportion of sewage, into Torquay inner harbour, Torquay new harbour (two outfalls), Brixham harbour, and the resort beaches of Preston Sands and Paignton Sands. The hazard to health and amenity which such a discharge of raw sewage entails would be considerable in any resort area; Torbay, however, has its own peculiar problem--that of the 'sheltered anchorage' which first brought it prosperity. The region has virtually no tidal scour--what comes into the bay, stays there for a considerable time; and the untreated sewage must be dealt with in situ by the appropriate bacteria. But, because of the shelter from wind and tide, and the convenient position of Torbay in relation to the channel ports, it has become a favourite area for super-tankers to off-load their cargoes of oil into smaller tankers which can enter existing harbour installations. A tightrope situation therefore results: sooner or later, there will be some oil-
Torq
Ho0e's Nose
/Preston sands
/
•
{~a" ~ignt°n
TORBAY
water-skiing ~(SalternC°ve %
~
xh~a~m ~ • Bri
,~ ~
f_..~ SharkhamPoint
- ) 1
Major towns and importantlandmarks in the area of Torbay. The black rectangle in the smallermap is is the area illustrated in the figure. spill, which will remain in the bay unless treated by detergent. The detergent will destroy the bacteria, the sewage will remain undegraded, and Torbay will become, in effect, a stagnant cess-pool. The postulated chain is as strong as its weakest link--in this case the safety of oiltransfer procedures. As far as the proposed Underwater Nature Reserve is concerned, the oil hazard is fully recognized by its sponsors. This particular area, although possessing no unique or very rare species, is rich in marine life. The land area of Saltern Cove is already a local Nature Reserve and the idea is to extend the protected area to a quarter-of-a-mile out to sea. (This will, incidentally, involve certain legal complications; the competance of the Nature Conservancy Council ends apparently, at the low water mark.) When questioned about the oil hazard, a spokesman for the project (who wished to remain anonymous) said that, in the event of the oil spill 'which sooner or later must happen', they would wish Saltern Cove to be left untreated. Oil, he maintains, does not destroy marine life--only sea birds--and Saltern Cove could be a valuable starting point for the marine life of Torbay to renew itself. When questioned about the sewage hazard, he affirmed the Saltern Cove project is in no way concerned with the sewage problem. The recently amalgamated Torbay Borough Council has, however, been giving considerable consideration to 147
the sewage problem of the area, and has been considering a number of proposals which they can put forward to the South Western Water Authority, which is now responsible for the ultimate decision. The consultants, John Taylor and Sons, favour adaptation and extention of the existing outfalls. (The spokesman of the firm in this matter, Jack Calvert, took part in the recent International Symposium on Marine Disposal of Sewage at Westminster.) Their plans would involve extending the Hope's Nose and Sharkham Point outfalls to 1,500 m from shore, and fitting of diffusers, macerators and screening devices, This would of course, reduce the aesthetic outrage caused to bathers and boaters by gross untreated sewage; it would not, however, diminish the actual pollution hazards. Float tests carried out from the proposed new discharge points suggest a percentage of sewage returned to shore within a few hours of up to 6.5 ~ from Hopes Nose and 2.5 ~ from Sharkham Point. Since float tests generally give a somewhat optimistic result, these figures must be taken as erring on the underestimation side. As far as the deeper-water hazards are concerned (viz. the pollution of the shell-fisheries and inshore fishing industries which contribute considerably to the economy of the area both as direct producers and as a tourist attraction, and also the doomsday menace of an oil-spill), the new outfalls would make little if any difference. The only advantage would seem to be that of (relative) cheapness. The consultants quote a figure of between £2-3 million. However, the estimate of laying pipes on the seabed must necessarily be a very tentative one, and it seems likely that if this plan were adopted, the cost would be considerably higher. The alternative plan proposed by John Taylor and Sons, but not given their personal recommendation, quotes a cost of £11 million for two treatment plants (one for Torquay, and one for Paignton/Brixham) with the associated pipes and pumping stations. In spite of the cost, this scheme has considerable local backing, and a massive campaign has been launched in its support by the Torbay Trades Council (a Trades' Union body). They advance a number of cogent arguments in favour of treatment plants, ranging from economic spin-offs-the selling of sludge for agricultural purposes, or the use of the methane produced by the plant as a power source for the plant itself--to wider ecological considerations-the possibility of ultimate recycling of water. Their main standpoint, however, is that of pollution--health hazard, aesthetic outrage, the loss of amenity value, the threat to the fisheries. The campaign, which ranges from direct approaches to the relevant official bodies to the grass-roots collection of signatures (conducted on Saturday afternoons in the shopping centres less frequented by tourists) is following the usual course of such campaigns. At this stage, it is impossible to judge its final effectiveness, but Mr. M. F. Healy the campaign organiser indicated an encouraging response, both in signatures to the petition, and in letters from official and quasi-official bodies. Campaigns in defence of local amenities are, of course, nothing new, and on accasion would appear to contain a certain amount of misguided enthusiasm arising from a lack of data and an inability to see the overall picture. What distinguishes this campaign is that it is the campaigners and not the planners who seem to have a better grasp of the facts. In the near future, some action is scheduled 148
for the disposal of sewage in the Torbay area. The consultants recommend extended outfalls and the removal of the more obvious and offensive constituents by screening and maceration. This would give an apparent amenity improvement at a relatively low cost (if the estimate has a sound basis in fact). Usually, one would expect that such an apparent and immediate 'improvement' would satisfy the local population, and it would be the experts who would wish to spend a larger sum to safeguard the ecology. But here we have the reverse case - - i n local opinion, the cheaper solution will not do. What lies behind the paradox of Torbay will probably remain an unsolved mystery of committees and council meetings, a secret beyond the ken of the uninitiated. At a guess, however, one may suggest that somewhere, in the recesses of officialdom, and in the recent amalgamations of planning bodies, there has been some lack of communication. Possibly, the persons who examined the sites of outfalls kept their eyes turned shorewards, and did not wonder about the activity of the tankers? Maybe the experts on the disposal of floodwater on land have lost contact with those who deal with tidal matters ? Presumably the sponsors of the proposed Underwater Nature Reserve assume that all is well with Torbay's waters, and have not noticed, overhead, the increasing flocks of herring gulls--the scavengers whose massive presence is a sure index of untreated waste ? At present, such questions remain academic, an intellectual puzzle to those who find diversion in discussing the vagaries of officialdom. One can only hope that they remain academic, and that the problem of Torbay is solved and rightly solved before the inevitable oil-spill occurs, and the apparent bureaucratic confusion behind the current situation becomes a matter not of farce but of tragedy. VERA RICH
Law of the Sea The Law of the Sea Conference, held in Caracas recently, seems to have ended in a flourish of diplomatic indecision. Delegates failed to agree on any of the fundamental issues facing the Conference. Even the place and time of the next meeting seems to be giving them some trouble. Britain favours Geneva in March, but the old cliche, 'a lot can happen between now and March', seems to be particularly appropriate here. Will the industrial giants of all nations who want to mine the mineral deposits wait for agreement to be reached on what may seem to them the niceties of international law ? Conflict arose in the discussion over national rights in the 'economic zones'. It is still to be decided whether they should extend to 50 or even 200 miles, covering control over mineral as well as fish resources. Britain has refused to agree to the principle that other EEC countries can share oil and gas resources in the continental shelf in the North Sea. Amidst the wrangling, the 'Group of 77', the developing nations, have been attempting to prevent submersion under the power of the advanced nations. The two groups have been divided on the issue of the International Seabed Authority, the proposed administrative body for the enormous area outside even a 200 mile coastal zone. Those who have the technological means to exploit the oceans' vast resources want a 'licence to kill'. Those who have little prospect of direct material gain from the oil