No sewage treatment means no sludge
Letters Goldstream Gazette, Victoria News and others - 5 February 2009
The best way to deal with sewage sludge is not to create it — and our current system of long marine outfalls and source controls is quite satisfactory as a way of doing just that.
Advocates of land-based sewage treatment who extol the virtues of reducing the "waste" of sewage ignore the fact that our marine ecology actually needs replenishment of proteins and other elements that humans have been removing through fishing, or destroying through habitat degradation.
The most beneficial thing we can do with our outfall effluent, which is 99 per cent water, is to keep pumping it into the deep, rapid currents of Juan de Fuca Strait.
Certainly, sewage effluent source controls are most important, and not just for the health of our marine environment, but also to reduce the toxic load in our communities.
For some of the other chemicals that are toxic in concentrated sewage sludge, the degradation in the marine environment seals these elements as stable compounds in marine sediments, and are not a threat to the environment.
John Newcomb
Saanich
Region could build up to 11 sewage plants
Rob Shaw, Times Colonist, January 29, 2009
Greater Victoria could build between three and 11 sewage treatment plants, according to recommendations by consultants hired by the Capital Regional District. Those recommendations were passed to politicians on the CRD's sewage committee yesterday, who continue to wrestle with what type of plants to build and where to locate them.
The options included:
- Three plants, located in West Shore, Saanich East (presumably on land the CRD recently purchased at Haro Woods), and either Macaulay or McLaughlin points in Esquimalt.
- Five plants, located at the previously mentioned locations plus another facility in West Shore, and a site in downtown Victoria or James Bay.
- Eleven plants, at undisclosed locations scattered throughout the capital region.
In each case, the CRD would still need a facility at Clover Point in Victoria to screen "wet weather flow" -- the rush of excess rainwater that mixes into the sewage stream during stormy weather. That water would then be discharged into the ocean, similar to the region's existing system of underwater outfalls.
The proposed designs focused on recovering heat from the sewage stream for resale to nearby residential, commercial and government buildings, said consultant John Spencer of engineering firm CH2M Hill.
"These create for you a robust range that are realistic options," he told sewage committee members. "There's an opportunity for you to mix and match some of this as we look at [location] issues."
Politicians on the sewage committee spent most of yesterday's two-hour meeting airing concerns about the lack of solid financial estimates for the project, and wondering how they can make decisions without proper figures. "Before any of these engineering things come forward, we have to have some numbers," said Oak Bay Coun. John Herbert.
Politicians also worried about fixing the region's hundreds of kilometres of leaky pipes. Although pipe repair is a municipal responsibility, leaks increase the amount of water that travels to the sewage treatment plant.
Municipalities are already spending millions in pipe repairs and many wanted to know how that would decrease sewage operating costs.
CRD staff promised to return with such numbers. New financial estimates for sewage treatment are expected March 11.
The thing about sludge
Rebecca Aldous - Victoria News
Published: January 29, 2009 2:00 PM
Never mind how to build or where to locate sewage treatment plants around Victoria, the question is what to do with the byproduct
The Capital Regional District’s proposed sewage treatment system will generate 30,000 tonnes of sludge, or biosolids, annually.
But where this material winds up and how it gets there are questions with no easy answers.
It’s an issue of vital importance that could pose long-term environmental and potential health risks, noted the district’s solid waste committee, which voted to prohibit biosolid application on agricultural and forest lands in the CRD.
The committee’s concerns are justified, said soil chemist Murray McBride, who’s studied toxic metal for 30 years.
There’s a lack of long-term research into the potential accumulation of chemicals and heavy metals, warns McBride, the director of the Cornell (N.Y.) Waste Management Institute.
Every year new pharmaceutical products make their way into waste water,fire retardants, toxins from anti-bacterial soaps and chemicals in antidandruff shampoo are but a few. Some are overlooked in government screening regulations, he said.
Because of these unknowns, McBride won’t recommend biosolid land application, especially to farmers.
"We simply can’t afford to sacrifice the quality of a significant percentage of our best farmland. It is not an option," McBride said.
While environmental risk from putting biosolids on land is refuted by many organizations, including the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, it may be a moot point.
The practice may not be viable for the region, said Dwayne Kalynchuk, the district’s general manager of environmental services. Property requirements are strict -there are creek setbacks, bans around water reserves and odours preventing biosolids from being placed in urban areas.
A lack of suitable land forced the CRD to truck biosolids from its Saanich Peninsula treatment plant to Hartland Landfill, where a portion is further processed for fertilizer and distributed to the public, said Kalynchuk.
There’s potential land north of the Malahat, but trucking costs, a cost ultimately borne by taxpayers, must be factored in.
Such costs caused Metro Vancouver to consider incineration of biosolids.
Since the early 90s, the city’s sludge has been trucked to the Interior for mine and gravel pit reclamation. But the bill for moving 27,000 tonnes of dried biosolids annually is adding up, said Fred Nenninger, Metro Vancouver’s regional utility planning manager.
"You have to go further and further afield, so you start running into longer and longer distances and it becomes more and more costly," he said.
No matter what the costs, the Township of Esquimalt doesn’t want biosolids trucked through the community. With the CRD examining Macaulay and MacLaughlin points as possible sewage treatment sites, Mayor Barbara Desjardins said trucking sludge through the municipality’s streets to its final destination is unacceptable.
The trucking of sludge is a difficult component to cut out of the treatment equation. Unless burned or converted to fertilizer, for example, most often biosolids are the final product. Placing incinerators or fertilizer production facilities at sewage treatment plants, requires more land, Kalynchuk said.
The district will pick a multitude of biosolid disposal options, not only to provide sustainability, but to engage in responsible planning, he said.
Standardizing regulations
Municipalities currently follow B.C.’s Organic Matter Recycling Regulations for biosolid disposal guidelines. But with the federal government mandating secondary sewage treatment for all larger municipalities by 2020, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment is in the initial phase of creating nationwide regulations.
"I think people were looking to bring a little more consistency to a management approach," council executive director Carl Hrenchuk said.
Burn baby, burn
Incineration is the way to go, says William Fernandes, division manager of treatment and capital waste water for the Region of Peel near Toronto.
"We went through a complete analysis of different options and incineration
(was) number 1 in regards to the environment, cost and reliability and operations," he said.
The Peel system processes 55,000 tonnes of dried sludge per year. For every 400 tonnes of sludge put through the system, 300 becomes water and 100 solid, which is further broken down to 30 tonnes of ash and pumped into a storage pond. In countries such as Japan, the ash is used to make bricks and for road paving. The Peel incinerator saves on fuel costs by using heat from the exchange, Fernandes added.
Carbon dioxide created in the process is scrubbed and sent into the atmosphere. There is no more CO2 produced by incineration than there would be with land application, Fernandes said. "It would get converted by nature," he said. "(This) is just speeding up the process."
Composting another option
Grass grows greener with a little help from biosolids, said Mike Van Ham, senior environmental scientist for environmental consulting firm Sylvis.
The City of Milwaukee produces fertilizer from its biosolids which is sold at Home Depot. The fertilizer meets all U.S. standards and can be used on vegetable gardens, Van Ham said. "Composting biosolids is both a treatment and a way of making a product."
The biosolid is heated until it’s pasteurized, killing almost all pathogens, he said. The biosolids contain phosphorus and nitrogen, base ingredients in fertilizer. The largest hurdle fertilizer created from biosolids faces is public image, he said.
"The biggest challenge is perception. That’s the largest challenge, the ick factor."
Province's logic faulty for creating sewage treatment
Letters: Victoria News
January 20, 2009
The paramount impact of spending money to replace our long sewage outfalls with land-based treatment (LBT) would be neither environmental nor financial, but social.
The damage would come primarily to a society whose representatives:
Never explained that long outfalls were chosen rather than secondary treatment with short outfalls because that would protect the sea better and has indeed done so.
Decide who knows best how to monitor the long outfalls and interpret the results, but then ignore their findings.
Ignore a letter to the Minister of Environment by 92 scientists and others, including the University of Victoria’s Dean of Science, that told Environment Minister Barry Penner there is no evidence for the order for LBT (see the website www.rstv.ca)
Do not challenge the minister’s order, given under an act to protect the environment, when the benefits of such a plan have not been established, but the potential harm is quite clear.
Do not challenge the minister, when he quotes the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) report as being in support of LBT, when its conclusion states "the benefits of treatment cannot be described with any precision," but then does not describe them at all. Its final paragraph states "a potential approach might be to install treatment …" If it had been the ‘best’ approach, SETAC would obviously have said so.
Employ a firm without local experience (SETAC) at huge cost, but ignore our own universally renowned Pat Bay Oceanographic Institute.
Study what resources could be obtained from the sewage whilst ignoring environmental, health and safety damage that could occur from the manufacture, transportation and installation of materials in a contract equivalent to building 8,000 homes worth $150,000. The impact of the Annacis Island secondary plant on the Fraser River is greater than that of our long outfalls on the sea, indicating the perversity of trying to turn our sewage into resources rather than any other.
Ignore the benefits of the nutrients to sea life.
Ignore benefits that could be obtained spending the $1.2 billion in other ways (8,000 homes).
Dwell on the financial benefits to the tourist industry, but ignore the financial damage from the tax load. There is a billion-dollar incentive to go ahead with the project, for every last dollar that would come out of the taxpayer’s pocket would go into someone else’s.
Many know LBT is unnecessary, but support it as they construe democracy as doing what is popular, or, it is in their interest to do so.
Alternatively, $12 million (one per cent of what is proposed) could be spent on publicizing the facts.
Ted Dew-Jones, P. Eng.
Victoria
Impact assessments for sewage proposal are inadequate
Letters: Times Colonist - January 27, 2009
If the Capital Regional District is spending $20 million for sewage sites in 2009 (part of the $1.2 billion total cost), it's doing so before proper environmental impact assessments can confirm the least risky sewage plant locations.
However, we can't expect too much from the sketchy environment impact assessments promised under the province's Municipal Sewage Regulations.
For example, the MSR guidelines amount to just 32 pages, compared to more rigorous assessments under the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act. The outdated assessment process didn't envision this experimental resource-recovery initiative that promises to "transform" our communities.
While the CRD reports reassuringly offer us the 32 "house-sized" sewage plants, a look at their map of the 39 candidate areas reveals that much larger neighbourhood landscapes are going to be affected by this process, along with hazardous treatment chemicals, metal production, high-voltage energy cables, pipes and sewage sludge trucks.
Building these land-based plants is a "lose-lose" situation because the usual secondary sewage plants emit an enormous amount of greenhouse gases, whereas the experimental resource recovery plants create costly and difficult problems of their own.
Victorians can do more for our environment by maintaining our current sewage treatment system and doing more conservation of resources and promoting enhanced sewage source controls.
Adding more unnecessary land-based sewage plants to our region isn't going to improve our marine environment, but will likely damage our land environment.
John Newcomb
Saanich