Dear Editor:
Fact 1: On April 24, 2014, the Regional District of the Central Okanagan and Sylvis were ordered by Robert Parker, Medical Health Officer for Interior Health not to proceed to dump biosolids at Brenda Mine.
“Specific to Brenda Mine Site and Trepanier Creek watershed, biosolids treatment, stockpiling and application management are insufficient to protect drinking water users from pathogenic micro-organisms if an extreme wet weather event were to occur.
“In addition, Brenda Mine on-site treatment, operator training, monitoring, regulatory oversight, governance and incident response are not designed for drinking water treatment and elimination of pathogen loading of water, if ideal biosolids application conditions are not met. Therefore, there are insufficient means to mitigate the risk of pathogen contamination of released water. Source protection is one of the main, and in some cases, only protection barrier for downstream drinking water users in this area.”
The same description of circumstances applies to BioCentral’s Dry Lake and Sunshine Valley sites, but for the fact that the sites are much closer to the wells, not 20 km away, as in the case of Brenda Mine.
Question 1: Why have BioCentral’s Dry Lake and Sunshine Valley sites been treated differently from the Brenda Mine site? After all, Brenda Mine is some 20 kilometres from Peachland, and BioCentral’s sites are directly uphill from and much closer to (1.5km) registered drinking water wells.
Fact 2: Mr. Garthwaite (project manager for Sperling Hansen Associates) was authorized to proceed to place biosolids at Rey Creek Ranch on many occasions, notably August 27, 2014, with the following comment from Anita Ely of Interior Health:
“This letter is a follow up to my ‘may proceed’ with June 10, 2014 Land Application Plan (LAP) letter of yesterday. Although I didn’t communicate any objections for this most recent SAP, I do have unanswered questions about the sustainability and cumulative impact to this watershed of repeated applications to lands in this watershed of large quantities of biosolids over extended time periods. My impression is there are plans to continue to apply to Rey Creek Ranch lands well into the future. Therefore, please know for future Organic Matter Recycling Regulation Schedule 13 Notification of biosolids SAPs I will request supporting evidence the cumulative impact of the planned biosolids application and past applications to any lands in the watershed will not have a detrimental impact on water quality in the subject watershed.”
Question 2: If there was concern about the cumulative impact, why were tests not ordered at that time?
Fact 3: Anita Ely further approved land application of biosolids to Rey Creek Ranch following the above cautionary letter on January 8, 2015 and February 19, 2015.
Question 3: Did she insist on soil and water samples before approving the continued land application? If so, what were the results?
Fact 4: The Suzuki Foundation, an independent scientific environmental organization, tested the soil around the application area at Rey Creek Ranch.
The Suzuki Foundation had the soil samples tested by an independent laboratory, and the results were astonishing. According to Aaron Sam, Chief of the Lower Nicola Indian Band, the soil samples exceeded BC limits for contaminated sites under Schedules 4 and 7 of the BC Contaminated Sites Regulations for Cadmium, Copper (very high), Mercury, Molybdenum (one of two samples), Selenium, Sodium Ion, Tin, Zinc (very high), and others.
Question 4: If the soil and water were tested prior to the approval of land application on January 8 and February 9, 2015, why did those tests not reveal the extent of the contamination?
Fact 5: It’s all about the money. In the Abbotsford Council minutes found online, dated April 25, 2014, BioCentral was awarded a 5-year contract for an estimated $495,000 per year to “beneficially use” 7,000 tonnes per year. That’s $70 per tonne. That’s $2,475,000 estimated value of the contract.
BioCentral’s contract with the Central Okanagan Regional District, signed September 11, 2014, is worth approximately $1,157,000 for a five-year period, not including hauling to the site (Central Okanagan pays for getting the sludge to the site).
Too bad about desecration of the land, air and water.
Question 5: If biosolids are so beneficial, then why are ranchers and landowners being paid to take it? You would think they ought to be paying the municipalities or regional districts for it.
Libby Dybikowski
The Nicola Valley
