Here it is folks - proof that Metro Vancouver IS NOT INTERESTED in a green clean way to handle its sewer sludge - here is an international posting from today (January 5th 2017) - "Solutions that require significant infrastructure or capital investment such as energy recovery processes and associated technologies, will not be considered."
"Major Canadian municipality seeking expertise in biosolids use and management in connection with three major wastewater treatment plants
Municipality invites submissions of Expressions of Interest regarding the management and beneficial use of Class A and/or B biosolids generated by the three large wastewater treatment plants servicing large populations. While it is anticipated that this SRFEOI may lead to negotiations with Respondents that provide attractive solutions, the municipality reserves the unfettered right to determine the next steps in the process which may include: issuing a Request for Qualifications or a Request for Proposal; collapsing this process entirely; or pursuing a different selection process altogether.
The key objective of this SRFEOI is to identify potential short to medium term biosolids management solutions that will further develop and/or provide diversification of market opportunities for Metro Vancouver's biosolids. Solutions that require significant infrastructure or capital investment such as energy recovery processes and associated technologies, will not be considered..
Closing date: 17/01/2017
Metro Vancouver has shown its true colours ... and it is NOT GREEN (despite the pretense of "greenness" Mayor Robertson and others pretend to advocate) - They are looking for short-term answers, and not addressing the serious issue of the toxic burden they put on the shoulders of the surrounding rural communities by producing and disposing of toxic sewer sludge (aka biosolids) onto lands meant to sustain us. Get with it METRO - energy recovery is the way!! Show some leadership!!
Meanwhile, several months ago -
This past week MetroVancouver hosted "biosolids expert Lynda McCarthy" to come and give a talk on the land application of sewer sludge, to city officials and members of other municipalities. Dr. McCarthy, who favours land dispersal of sewer sludge, works at Ryerson University and has teamed up on research publications with industry players like the "biosolids" disposal company Sylvis. At the presentation, these councillors heard one side of the story. I would hope on other important issues the city listens to all sides of a debate ... I believe that is called due diligence, as well as simple fair play.
Did MetroVancouver ask for speakers from the rural communities to come in and speak about how they feel about having other city's toxic burden disposed of on their doorstep? NO. Did the city ask to have First Nations' representatives to come in and talk about how they felt about having big city sewage spread throughout their traditional territores - where their traditional lifeways have been put in jeopardy by this practice? NO. (see recent article "Impact of Biosolids on First Nations Way of Life" by Kay Swakum (Lower Nicola Indian Band - Scw'exmx nation) (http://dominion.mediacoop.ca/story/impact-biosolids-first-nations-way-life/36184).
There are many scientists who do argue an opposing view to that of Lynda McCarthy's - and argue that disposing of a city's toxic sewage in this manner presents a serious threat to health. Did the city provide equal time to hear these other voices and to hear the other side of the story? NO.
By contrast, our neighbours down south just had an open hearing on this very issue - and asked to hear both sides of this complicated issue. (see House Democratic Policy Committee- Re: Public Hearing on sewage sludge, Date: August 29, 2016 - and Prof. Caroline Snyder's address to that committee can be read here - http://biosolidsbattleblog.blogspot.ca/2016/09/prof-caroline-snyder-speaks-at-public.html ).
The councillors should have had the chance to hear from professionals like Dr. Thomas Maler, who has spoken up about the very real threat of superbugs multiplying in water treatment facilities, and not being eliminated before being applied to land. As he notes, there are two obvious steps that should be taken by cities interested in safeguarding the public's health: "1) install a small sewage treatment in each hospital so that they don't spread the superbugs into the general sewage and 2) use tertiary treatment in ALL sewage treatment plants and gasify the sludge from each, certainly not spread it on land as a fertilizer, that is insanity." Or as he has said elsewhere, "I find it unbelievable that governments allows the spreading of sludge that already contains thousands of toxins, superbugs, viruses and probably/possibly prions."
There are specialists like Dr. Rayne, who has written about the potential problems around releasing Flame Retardants (PBDE's) and other chemicals into the environment. As he has written, "An unimaginably large number of chemical and biological contaminants exist in these materials (sewer sludge), and they persist in the product up to, and after, land disposal. Scientific investigations have identified only a tiny fraction of the total contaminant load." Specifically on PBDE's, he has noted, "There are 209 different PBDEs, each of which has a unique toxicology and environmental fate. PBDEs have been studied around the world for several decades, and despite many millions of dollars in research and thousands of dedicated researchers, we still have a very poor understanding of the true risks from their release into the environment."
A recent paper by SFU Professor Bruce Lanphear, outlines the dangers of low-level environmental toxins on the developing brain. In light of the constant spreading of sewer sludge, containing countless chemicals and toxins, throughout our farmlands and forests, this is very concerning. As Lanphear writes, "Over the past 50 years, it has become clear that low-level exposures to environmental toxins can result in substantial disease and disability ... We can no longer deny the substantial if insidious impact that environmental toxins have on the developing brain." Surely any rational person can see that eliminating the toxic sewer sludge pathway is one strategy that we should be pursuing. We spend all that time, effort and money taking those toxins out of the waste water stream - why on earth would we carelessly go spreading them back into the environment, thereby creating a ticking time bomb for the next generation? This is selfish, short-sighted and reckless!
Prof. Lanphear is not alone in sounding the alarm. Dr. Richard Honour has also been alerting the public to the dangers of adding to the levels of toxins in our environment. Dr. Honour has noted that, "Few if any governments appreciate that nearly all chronic diseases are caused by long-term exposure to low levels of environmental contaminants and pollutants." We should be trying to minimize this exposure, not amplifying it.
This is a growing concern, and there are now yearly conferences on these low level toxicity threats. In particular, the "Halifax Project Task Force" is focused on "Assessing the Carcinogenic Potential of Low Dose Exposures to Chemical Mixtures in the Environment". 174 scientists from prominent institutions in 28 countries were recently formed into 12 teams and focused on the possibility that complex mixtures of commonly encountered chemicals in the environment may be capable of carcinogenic effects that have yet to be fully appreciated. This is a serious ticking time bomb, and the disposal of our city's toxins onto rural environments is certainly adding to these concerns.
What the public needs to know is that there are truly independent scientists (like the ones I have just mentioned, doing good science, without any relationship with the sludge industry whatsoever) and there are many others who work with members of the sludge industry, and who have financial ties to the sludge industry (which can take many forms, such as scholarships, equipment "gifts" , funding allowances, department chair endowments etc.). Now, if we were looking at a research project about possible health risks associated with cigarette smoking, would you believe you are getting the whole story, the naked truth, from a laboratory that was working directly with the tobacco industry? Or believe research that was funded in part by Big Tobacco? No, no rational person would. There has been a great deal written lately about this issue of corruption within academia and within the scientific establishment. Dr. David Lewis' recent book, "Science for Sale" makes this case very strongly. Independent, arm's length science is becoming harder to find, but we as a society must insist upon it - our health, (and the environment's health) depends upon it.
So, yes MetroVancouver, there is another side to this story and it needs to be heard. A lot depends on it being heard. The sludge industry has controlled this narrative for too long. Cities and governments have been quite happy to give over their responsibility in this matter to these operations, as this method of "handling" this toxic waste, spreading it thinly throughout rural landscapes, is the cheapest method to hand (it may however have huge costs down the line - see Dr. Honour's article, "What is the Cost of Free Sewage Sludge?" (http://biosolidsbattleblog.blogspot.ca/2016_06_05_archive.html). We expect more from our government leaders and decision makers. Short-term solutions, which may jeopardize future generations will not do.
A growing number of scientists and citizens see the sense in applying the "precautionary principle" to this reckless practice. There is just too much at stake here. We do have alternatives. More and more, cities are moving away from land application toward gasification / pyrolysis, as this is both Greener and Safer! As Dr. Rayne says, "Governments are playing Russian roulette with sewage sludge. Over time, there is a high probability this game will be lost at the public's expense."