5673 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

A billion dollars well spent.

[Victoria Watcher]

Treated sewage will be shipped from Greater Victoria to Nanaimo in the near term as the region has decided to stray further from its own policies.

The Capital Regional District board on Feb. 8 approved amending its short-term biosolids contingency plan to allow the pellet-like end-product of locally processed sewage to be spread on non-agricultural lands.

The emergency alternative of sending the biosolids to land applying programs in the Nanaimo area is expected to cost $65,000, which is predicted to be lower than the cost of landfilling the product.



https://www.vicnews....t-term-measure/





We could have cut out the middleman here. Saved a $ billion. And just go sh*t in the woods. Same difference.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 15 February 2023 - 01:44 PM.

[Mike K.]

Why don’t they sell this as cheap garden and grass fertilizer? In the US they do.

[Victoria Watcher]

Greater Victoria's sewage biosolids to be shipped to Nanaimo as tree fertilizer

 

The end result of sewage treatment, the biosolids are supposed to go to Lafarge cement kiln in Richmond, but it was out of commission for almost all of 2022, resulting in a space crunch at Hartland landfill.

 

https://www.timescol...tilizer-6597787

 

 

 

Land application of the biosolids is something the Capital Regional District vowed it would never do since the early stages of the $775-million wastewater treatment plant.

 

__________________________________

 

There was no immediate indication by CRD staff of when shipments north would begin or where the biosolids would be spread. It will be at least five weeks’ worth of biosolids, or until Lafarge gets it kiln going.

 

“I find it very hypocritical of us to allow biosolids to be land-applied outside of our region when we are against land application in our own area,” said Esquimalt Mayor Barb Desjardins, chair of the CRD’s environmental services committee. “There is significant evidence this practice isn’t without health and safety concerns.”

 

Director Jeremy Caradonna called the Nanaimo decision “frustrating. “Let’s be honest. How many people around this table would accept biosolids from Alberta or Washington state? Would any of you want biosolids sprayed on the forests around Saanich or Sooke?” asked Caradonna.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 23 February 2023 - 04:35 AM.

[Mike K.]

The alternative is burning it. Isn’t that frustrating, too? I thought we were above burning our garbage.

[Victoria Watcher]

Maybe we should put it deep in the ocean?

[Sparky]

When we sent the finished biosolids to Lafarge …they burned it.

There is something fishy about Lafarge not taking our turds anymore. It has been said that the problem was on Lafarge’s end, but it wouldn’t surprise me if we produced unsatisfactory turds that won’t work in their furnace.

[Mike K.]

I still can't believe how the original plan of burning it in Richmond is somehow better than using it as fertilizer in Nanaimo.

[spanky123]

^ It was reported last year that the issue was that our bio-solids were too large and not dry enough for the plant due to a performance issue with our treatment plant.

 

Multiple failures sending most of Greater Victoria’s treated sewage to the landfill - Port Alberni Valley News

 

Operators then discovered a particle size screening issue. Unable to meet the maximum one-centimetre diameter pellet size dictated by Lafarge, the residual treatment facility was forced to landfill hundreds of tonnes of the material from July to the end of October.

In August, a dryer malfunction caused another nearly 500 tonnes of waste to be dumped.

[Mike K.]

So how long before we realize the most practical thing to do is to dump the stuff into the ocean?

[spanky123]

I still can't believe how the original plan of burning it in Richmond is somehow better than using it as fertilizer in Nanaimo.

 

The problem with the residual is that it contains nasty stuff that can't be filtered out during the treatment process (think of all of the medicines, drugs and minerals/metals that pass through people and into drains).

[Mike K.]

And that was one of the reasons, was it not, why we built the plant in the first place, in order to neutralize the harsh chemicals that were being pumped into the ocean?

[Nparker]

What can you expect when you allow policy to be dictated by a dancing piece of ****.

[aastra]

 

So how long before we realize the most practical thing to do is to dump the stuff into the ocean?

 

150 years ago?

[Victoria Watcher]

150 years ago, we actually didn’t know if it was a good, effective idea.

Fast forward 130 years, we did know it was. But we built a plant anyway.

[Mike K.]

Maybe it’s not in what’s delivered into the ocean but how it’s delivered? Ie liquid fertilizer is a faster release method, but pelleted fertilizer is a little slower.

[spanky123]

And that was one of the reasons, was it not, why we built the plant in the first place, in order to neutralize the harsh chemicals that were being pumped into the ocean?

 

When the waste is burned then you have a lot more concentrated material to dispose of.

[Matt R.]

The alternative is burning it. Isn’t that frustrating, too? I thought we were above burning our garbage.

What gives you that idea?

[Mike K.]

By all the talk of being so environmentally forward.

Lamenting not burning our garbage is an odd situation to find ourselves in.

[Matt R.]

Oh, well we burn loads of garbage around these parts.  I think you spend too much time listening to experts.