Presentation to the CRD's Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee January 13th 2010 by Dr Shaun Peck
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again.
I am concerned that the Greater Victoria public has been mislead by information in the December 9th CRD press release. The September 23rd consultant’s report (Options 1a,1b,1c Analysis) estimates that when building the proposed land based Sewage Treatment plants, 15,516 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (equivalents) - Green House Gases (GHGs) will be created and then during the operation of the plants an additional 7,917 tonnes per year will be produced (over the 50 year lifespan of the plants this will be 400,000 tonnes of C02). This was not mentioned in the press release. It was in the report. The press release just mentioned you could claim an offsetting of 18,500 tonnes of GHG offsets per year. The offsets will not result in a reduction of the original “Carbon Footprint” that is created.
There needs to be a review of the impact of building and operating the proposed Land Based Sewage Treatment plants on the Global, Land and Marine Environment. This review should then be compared with the existing highly effective natural treatment of Victoria’s Liquid Waste.
I also suggest that there are deceptions occurring in the claims for annual costs to householders. They are being low-balled. In addition, resource recovery is being promoted - $5.7 Million by 2030 against an operating cost of $19.8 Million per year. Less than 1/3 of the operating costs, it therefore loses money annually and will have to be subsidized by property taxation. Another deception is that the report does not acknowledge that in order to have resource recovery, there has to be a 25% increase in the capital costs.
You should be asking your consultants Stantec to advise on lessons learned from the Vancouver Convention center construction, originally budgeted for $465 Million and ended up costing $883 Million. As stated on their web site, Stantec was providing comprehensive cost-to-completion project management services for the Vancouver Convention Center. They should be able to advise you on realistic budgeting for the CRD’s billion dollar project which in all likelihood, based on international experience with similar sized projects, will go way over budget.
The report (agenda item #6) on backup for the partially dried (dewatered) biosolids indicates that the Hartland landfill will be the site for disposing of 20,000 kg per day which I understand is equivalent to one large dump truck full. The report does not mention whether there will be sufficient space in the landfill for this to be accommodated on a long term basis. Should not the long term capacity be calculated? (Nor does the report mention the toxicity of the “treated” biosolids and their impact on the landfill)
I am somewhat amazed that a letter (agenda item 7) has been solicited from the Governor of Washington State. Washington has serious environmental problems – one is the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the site where there were nine nuclear reactors. It is the site of the US’s largest environmental cleanup. 53 Million US Gallons of high level radioactive waste has contaminated the Columbia river and fish in the river. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site). In Puget Sound, there is the Duwamish River that empties into Elliott Bay near the Seattle waterfront. It has been designated a superfund site because of contamination by PCBs, PAHs, mercury and phthalates. Fish and crab have 35-110 times the levels of PCBs than Puget Sound Salmon due to previous industrial activity.(See: http://www.duwamishcleanup.org/ ).
There is an implication in the Governor's letter that the construction of on-land treatment plants in the Victoria will "greatly help" the Governor's "commitment to restore Puget Sound to health" when in fact the exact opposite will be the case. Greenhouse gases will definitely increase with construction and operation of new treatment plants. Disposal of sludge through cement kiln incineration, whether in Victoria or the lower mainland, could easily impact the Puget Sound airshed. The amount of money necessary to build and operate the new plants could impact funds available for collaborative efforts on protecting vulnerable marine habitats, endangered species, and other vital initiatives.
On a positive note, we should applaud the work of the state of Washington, City of Seattle, local industries, and residents in cleaning up contaminated Puget Sound waterways, particularly the Duwamish river, not only because it improves their marine and estuarine environment, but also, because it reduces the flow of any contaminants in the water column past Victoria. It is important to recognize that the direction of water flow from all rivers flowing into the "Salish Sea" is toward the open Pacific, not toward Puget Sound and that 95% of identifiable pollution off Victoria comes from the mainland of BC and Washington State.
To conclude – please ensure that neither you nor the public are being mislead or even deceived by information that you are provided and that the CRD publicizes. Please consider the adverse effects on the global and land environment as the planning continues. Please ensure that you take into account world wide experience in budgeting for this size of project.
Thank you for your attention,
Dr Shaun Peck, Public Health Consultant
Member of Responsible Sewage Treatment Victoria
Member of the Association for Responsible and Environmentally Sustainable Sewage Treatment.