CALWMC - May 13th - Agenda

Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:00 AM 6th Floor Boardroom

Link to agenda http://bit.ly/1P80Y9A
The key agenda items are:

Inflow and Infiltration Management Plan Presentation and Sample Model Bylaw for Private Property Sewer Laterals

Terms of Reference and Recruitment - Technical Oversight Panel

Terms of Reference - Independent Engineering and Financial Analysis beyond 2015 (report to be provided prior to May 13)   See our blog posting here

Correspondence from the Mayor of the City of Langford dated April 23, 2015

Seaterra Program and Budget Update No. 22

Westside Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery Select Committee Agenda Package for Information

Eastside Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery Select Committee Agenda Packages for Information


Correspondence: Business Owners Re Seaterra and CRD Issues
See our blog posting here

Correspondence: Beadle Enterprises, 7 May 2015, Re Wastewater Treatment Issues

Motion for Which Notice Has Been Given: Options for Wastewater Treatment (Director Hamilton)

Notice of Motion: Flow Allocations--That staff report on the accuracy of current flow allocations and bring forward recommendations for adjusting as appropriate. (Director Isitt)

Motion to Close the Meeting

Independent Technical Oversight Panel - Draft - Terms of Reference and Selection Criteria

Part of May13th agenda ... same old biosolids again ...

Independent Technical Oversight Panel – Terms of Reference and
Selection Criteria – DRAFT
The Technical Oversight Panel:
1. Will be comprised of three to five members.
2. Will be given a $12,000/year honorarium + $750/meeting (up to 4hours, additional $750 over 4 hours) + travel disbursements. Chair will receive $30,000/year + same meeting and travel expenses.*
3. Will commence work in June 2015 and end in March 2016.
4. Will provide independent oversight to the work of the engineering, business case, lifecycle costing and other project analysis done post-June 2015.
5. Will report monthly to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee directly. The Chair of the Panel will have the primary responsibility for presenting updates and answering questions of the committee and speaking on behalf of the Panel at public sessions.
*Based on Seaterra Commission.
Selection Criteria / Skill sets sought:
1. Significant private sector business, finance and large-scale project-management experience.
2. Wastewater/biosolids treatment technology – up-to-date understanding of innovative/emerging/best practices including wastewater regulatory context.
3. Resource recovery – wastewater reuse (irrigation, purple pipe), district energy systems, biogas, biofuels.
4. Financial costing including capital/operating/life cycle, comparative evaluations, business case analysis, risk, financing.
5. Proven ability to pull conceptual ideas into overarching plan.
6. Chair, proven ability to deliver, able to present detailed concepts in political arena and to broad public, comfortable with public speaking, media, video taped proceedings and large venues.

Items 2 and 3 are saying BIOSOLIDS again. WHY?   What happened to a balanced and open approach? Where is any reference to expertise in gasification, syngas, biochar, etc.?

These words need to be changed:
Biosolids. The EPA describes it as  "the treated residuals from wastewater treatment (biosolids) can be safely recycled. Local governments make the decision whether to recycle the biosolids as a fertilizer, incinerate it or bury it in a landfill."

A biofuel is a fuel that is derived from biological materials, such as plants and animals. Also biofuel can still be seen as fuel derived from organic matter (obtained directly from plants, or indirectly from agricultural, commercial, domestic, and/or industrial wastes).

Biogas typically refers to a mixture of different gases produced by the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Biogas can be produced from raw materials such as agricultural waste, manure, municipal waste, plant material, sewage, green waste or food waste.

Update: May 11, 2015 13:00
Offering the following approaches:

Option A which is inclusive of multiple technologies and outcomes:
 
2. Wastewater, biosolid, and gasification treatment technology – up-to-date understanding of innovative/emerging/best practices including wastewater and reclaimed water regulatory context.
3. Resource recovery – wastewater reuse (irrigation, purple pipe), district energy systems, syngas, biochar, biogas, biofuels, gasification as source of electricity, heat, and distilled water and how these can be used to improve food security or other community benefits.

Option B which is exclusive and seeks neutral wording that does not exclude or prescribe a technology.  Obviously this is weaker because it is less informative but it may be needed at the political level.
 
2. Wastewater, residuals treatment technology – up-to-date understanding of innovative/emerging/best practices including wastewater and reclaimed water regulatory context.
3. Resource recovery – wastewater reuse (irrigation, purple pipe), district energy systems, energy conversion systems and other community benefits.

Frankly, the opportunity to work on this project, for someone in this field, should be a fantastic chance to start with a clean slate (no existing secondary infrastructure) and help design la world renowned leading edge (not bleeding edge) solution.
 

Business Owners Call for Positive Resolution

Letter from business owners to quash Seaterra will be item 6 on Wednesday's CALWMC meeting. Here a link to a copy of the letter including signatures of business owners: http://bit.ly/1JWmRFe

Capital Region District
625 Fisgard Street
Victoria B.C. V8W 1R7
Attention: Lisa Helps, CALWMC Chair
Re: Seaterra and CRD Issues

Dear Chair Helps,

We, the undersigned, are a group of concerned business owners from the Capital Region District. The reason for our concern is both past and recent developments regarding the Seaterra program and CRD staff.

In its relatively short history, the name Seaterra has already become synonymous with the high cost of bypassing meaningful public consultation. The project’s track record of questionable expenditures, ill advised land acquisitions and in camera decisions is already well documented. Thankfully the program was paused last year. However, in the intervening months, both Seaterra management and CRD staff have seemed unable to adapt to the region’s new direction regarding sewage treatment.

As recently as the last Core Area meeting (April 8), directors found out that the Seaterra Commission was still meeting, via conference call, without reporting minutes and that the winning bid on the McLoughlin RFP was being extended without the committee’s input. At this point, it would seem management is either unaware of or unwilling to meet the mandated level of transparency. Regardless of the project’s status, this kind of backroom operating is just simply no longer acceptable.

Far more worrisome is the apparent cross-pollination between the project, the contracted engineering consultant and CRD staff. What has been a brewing problem within the CRD for years has finally boiled over into a palpable distrust. Suspicions that staff and consultants are attempting to steer the process towards a predetermined outcome threaten to undermine both the efforts of the Select Committees and the integrity of the CRD itself. The CALWMC’s refusal to accept a staff report on February 18th serves as a public confirmation of the conflict.

In the six months since the municipal election, itself a de facto referendum on Seaterra, considerable progress has been made in regards to creating an open and accountable process through the Select Committees. However, if a majority of CALWMC directors feel there has been any attempt by CRD staff or project management to interfere with or obfuscate the process currently underway, further action must be taken. It is certainly understandable to want to spare real people the embarrassment that can come with accountability, but any further accommodation would surely risk undoing the gains made by voters on November 15th.

As a group of business owners with a considerable stake in sewage treatment, we’d like to express our support for any democratic means necessary, including a nonconfidence vote, to bring a positive resolution to this situation. With tens of millions in unrecoverable costs, the Seaterra Program has already left an expensive and embarrassing legacy for the region’s taxpayers. We know that the CALWMC is far from
unanimous in its feelings towards the project and the Select Committees. However, we encourage the new chair and the progressive voices within to bring a definitive end to Seaterra and any related dysfunction within the CRD.

Yours Sincerely,
signatures attached

CC: Mayor Nils Jensen, CRD Board Chair
All CALWMC Directors and Alternates

As well a second letter is on the May 13th agenda from another business owner.  To read the full letter find it in the CALWMC agenda or http://bit.ly/1IZfwDg