Showing posts with label public engagement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public engagement. Show all posts

Saturday, 23 January 2016

Misleading public on LWMP

The new public engagement process is in the news http://www.oakbaynews.com/news/365973471.html and the news and CALWMC directors are misleading the public.
“I think director (Ben) Isitt said it best, there’s still lots in flux.” Lisa Helps
“We’re not at the end. We’re not even at the beginning of the end. We’re making a teeny tiny decision … to go out and have conversation with our public,” said Susan Brice. “I really hoped that after hearing everything and not expecting perfection and knowing it’s fluid … that this would be something that would be quite frankly unanimously supported.”
There are many other similar statements coming from the CALWMC; all false. This public engagement is to prepare for a new LWMP amendment; to be ratified by CRD this Feb 24th; to be approved by the Province by the end of March.
Once approved there is NO WAY for the public to have it changed. The Seaterra Commission is waiting in the wings to take over in March/April and procure the new amendment. Those "in flux", "not at the end" statements are false: once the province approves the plan it is fixed.  Only another round of public engagement can produce a change.  Nothing can guarantee this will happen once Seaterra takes over.

CRD information on gasification is from non-experts

The CRD has said they have hired expertise in gasification.  Where is it?

Back in August 2015 the news was the CRD had just hired expertise in gasification.

https://www.crd.bc.ca/about/news/2015/08/14/calwmc-takes-key-steps-forward-with-wastewater-treatment-planning-process
Urban Systems, partnered with Carollo Associates, has been awarded the contract to conduct the Feasibility and Costing Analysis for the CRD’s Core Area Liquid Waste Management Plan Wastewater Treatment System. ...  Carollo Associates offers specialist advisors in key subject areas appropriate for the scope of work including: gasification, resource recovery, tertiary treatment and facility lifecycle cost estimation.
"Carollo Associates" was a mistake. The company name is "Carollo Engineers"  http://www.carollo.com/

Search the company web site for gasification and you will get no results.


During the Technical Oversight Panel meeting of January 12th, afternoon, there was a review of the cost estimates for gasification. On the phone was Rudi Killian and he was providing the "expertise"

Mr Killian is highly skilled; as is visible from his LinkedIn profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/rudy-kilian-3580008.  To see LinkedIn profiles you might need to be a registered user. So, for the record, here are Mr Killian's top skills
Water Treatment, Wastewater Treatment, Wastewater Process Design, Biosolids Management. Specialties: Biosolids, Project Management, Anaerobic Digestion, Advanced Anaerobic Digestion, Digetion (sic) of Organic Materials

There is nothing about gasification.

Does the CRD have any technical expertise in gasification? Yes but suppressed in the Technical Oversight Panel (TOP). This panel is run as a committee so the lonely gasification vendor/expert is always out voted by the traditional technology experts.  We are only getting what non-experts are telling us.

Bluntly, the technical information about gasification, provided by the CRD, is not based on technical expertise.

What is a LWMP?

LWMP stands for Liquid Waste Management Plan.  The Provincial web site describes it well.

Liquid waste management plans allow municipalities to develop community-specific solutions for wastewater management that meet or exceed existing regulations.
Final plans are approved by the Minister of Environment only after sufficient public and stakeholder consultation has taken place.
From the guidelines:
The Environmental Management Act (EMA) allows local governments to develop a Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) for approval by the Minister of Environment.  The approved LWMP authorizes a local government, in accordance with operational certificates, to proceed with measures in the plan to accommodate existing or future development with a strategy to ensure the management, resource recovery and disposal of treated waste is sufficiently protective of public health and the environment. Public and stakeholder consultation must be included to ensure that multiple interests have been considered and that the LWMP is supported by the community. A projected implementation schedule is generally included; the schedule may be affected by technical issues, the pace of development, and the availability of financing.
   
2.0 Provincial Objectives for LWMPs
The two primary objectives for LWMPs are to protect public health and the environment and to properly consult the public. Opportunities for elector participation through public review and consultation are an essential part of developing a LWMP and must occur before a plan may be considered for approval.
Additional provincial objectives for LWMPs are water conservation, drinking water source protection, resources from waste, energy conservation, climate change adaptation, and mitigation and sustainable financing and asset management. Local governments are encouraged to use their LWMPs to illustrate innovation and leadership in these areas.

... The EMA also states that the minister must be satisfied that there has been adequate public review and consultation during the development of the LWMP before approving the plan. These requirements are important because there is no mechanism to appeal a plan once approved by the minister.
The Local Government Act and the Community Charter require approval of electors for the borrowing of funds necessary to finance any capital works, including wastewater infrastructure. The provisions of the EMA allow local governments to borrow money without the approval of electors for implementation of an approved LWMP; therefore, the public consultation process must provide opportunities for elector participation during the development and amendment of a plan.
...
Public participation should foster acceptance and a feeling of ownership among the residents of the local community. While the guidelines found in this document serve as a baseline, local governments should not feel limited by them as further action may be required to meet the needs of community members.


Key things to remember about any LWMP.
  1. A LWMP is approved by the province. There is no "provisional" or "interim" or "in flux" or "one step along the way" approvals.
  2. Once approved there is no way the public can force any change.
  3. Public participation should foster acceptance not resignation and defeat.


What is the Technical Oversight Panel?

What is the Technical Oversight Panel?  Is it a committee or a panel?  This matters to everyone.
A committee is a group that works by consensus. They vote on motions and the majority wins. The voice of the minority is not heard outside of the committee. A panel works as a team and their work includes all voices.

The Technical Oversight Panel, or TOP for short, has six experts in different fields. The Technical Oversight Panel is operating as a committee. When they vote as a committee the non-experts always out number the expert in any given field.  Why?  The name "Technical Oversight Panel" indicates it should be a panel of peers so that the public and the decision makers hear from each relevant expert.

Here is a story that demonstrates the problem.   Only one expert on the panel knows about integrating different technologies to get innovation.  The vote was 5 against this 1.

"New wastewater bid doesn’t trigger an ‘option 6’" Oak Bay News

    Oak Bay Mayor Nils Jensen. “The purpose of putting a wide range of people on a committee is to have that wholesome discussion … it undermines the whole idea of committee work.”

    “We assembled this group of expert advice to give us expert advice,” agreed Director David Screech, View Royal mayor, adding it’s “completely out of line and insulting to our Technical Oversight Panel. Are we going to hear that every time someone doesn’t like a recommendation?”

Is is OK to allow this?  The public is paying for a Panel of Experts.  Why can't we hear what the expert on integration had to say about this rejected solution?  Why did the experts in the traditional, non-innovative, solutions get to out vote this expert's information from reaching us?
We may get to know the answer thanks to Director Atwell who got that request approved by CALWMC.  But the answer will be too late for the public engagement and the answer will be a special case instead of the status quo.
There are many other similar times TOP member's expert opinion as been suppressed by the committee structure.  You just had to attend any TOP meeting to see this happen. Other examples include topics such as integration of other waste stream, leading standards from Europe on calculating sewage flows, gasification, just to name a few.

The public is paying for a Panel of Experts but we got a committee to suppress the individual experts.

For reference here is the link to the terms of reference for the TOP link

Monday, 11 May 2015

RITE Planners Update #6 - Monday May 11, 2015


Introduction

Previous updates can be found here http://theriteplan.blogspot.com/

A lot is happening on the sewage issue:  … a vendor says the whole region can be serviced for $250 million; the upcoming CALWMC meeting has a packed agenda;  business owners are calling for change;  RITE planners are asking for consideration of distributed tertiary treatment with gasification; public events held in Saanich and Oak Bay;  roundtable on siting sewage treatment was held in Esquimalt; TCAC is being recalled; Mayor of Langford wants Seaterra to stop.   Wow.  We hope you enjoy getting all this wrapped up in our weekly update!

Next update we’ll talk about language.  The choice of words people use determines the outcomes.  For example, the word “biosolids” implies anaerobic digestion.  Disposal of “treated effluent” implies polluted secondary treatment.  We need (a) neutral words for the times no system is preferred and (b) a chart showing the “words” and how they relate to treatment solution.  For the time being, stay away from the the word “biosolids” unless you mean it. Use “residuals”.  Also avoid “treated effluent” unless you also include “reclaimed water”.

Tertiary Distributed with Gasification


This is the new way to describe the RITE plan in three simple words. It sums up all the other objectives into a nice package.  Our current goals include: seeing a space for true experts in gasification to come and educate us.

Pivotal IRM & Biowater Technology

On the last Westside Innovation Day, Pivotal IRM and Biowater Technology presented a complete sewage treatment and sludge management system for the Region.

For the whole region Pivotal/Biowater says it about $250M vs CRD Plan costing $782M.  This $250M includes land acquisition, trucks, buildings, redundant systems, training, uniforms, etc, etc, etc,.  A very detailed analysis.
The proposal uses the existing pipe infrastructure and includes costs for local connections to the new facilities.

In summary, it can be structured to be a profitable business rather than a drain on taxpayers.  It can save taxpayers $ billions in operating costs and debt charges over the life of the facilities. The technology is proven and stable in several countries. New plants are coming on-line all the time. The plants are very small in size and can be put where you want them to maximize use of existing infrastructure and resource recovery. The systems would be future proof because it exceeds all the performance requirements and standards and can be easily expanded when needed.   For more details  see our blog posting


Interview on Ian Jessop show

See our blog posting and listen to the interview on CFAX to see how it is possible the total project cost could be just $250 to $450 million


CALWMC - May 13th - Agenda

The agenda is packed with items that are going to change everything.  There is a letter from business owners calling for Seaterra to be disbanded.  Plus there is a second letter from a business owner:

Also presented are the Terms of Reference (TOR) for technical help.  But they are just repeating the same call for biosolids expertise and there is no mention of gasification expertise.  This is could be $ 300 million mistake but we may see some changes before the TOR are adopted

There is a call from Mayor of Langford to stop collecting the sewage taxes.

An update on the leaking sewage pipes which creates additional up front costs that can be avoided if the leaks are fixed.

A notice of motion from Ben Isitt calling for a review of the actual flows; basically seeking clarity on who will pay what but RITE also hopes this will bring clarity to actual flows.   We think the actual flows are decreasing over time and will be decreased even further by fixing the leaky pipes.

A notice of motion from Carol Hamilton which has been on each meeting’s agenda for a while now. Each time the motion is deferred.  Is this because of past experiences of trying to get a motion onto the agenda and the idea is to keep it on the agenda for the time it is needed?

RITE planners observe that the agenda makes no mention of the significant cost savings and revenue / environmental potential with gasification.  This has to change and this technology needs due consideration and some input from actual gasification experts.

Westside Roundtable Events


Two events last week.   One on Siting and the other on Resource Recovery.   The first event was full and the second nearly full (beautiful Saturday).  Both events collected some amazing input from residents.  At both events the public’s message was clear that the old plan is not sufficient.  People want a better solution and they are willing to help.  They seek more technical information.

We will report more on this event later when the notes become available.

Eastside Dialog Events


Two events. One at Cedar Hill Rec Center (Saanich)  and the other at Windsor Pavilion (Oak Bay).  Both events happened on a beautiful Saturday and had small attendance. Good considering the limited amount of promotion that was feasible given the rush timeline allows.    If Saanich and Oak Bay don’t get some strong leadership they are going to lose out on the opportunities that will come to the host community.

We will report more on this event later when the notes become available.

Technical and Community Advisory Committee (TCAC)


The TCAC is meeting was today at noon (May 11, 2015).   In the past, this committee did little because they met after the decisions were made just to approve the decisions.  This time the meeting was progressive because they  are all working towards sewage treatment. Except now it is a debate between the old guard who think secondary treatment / biosolids is good enough and …. a better plan.



General

Household Costs For Sewage Treatment Vs. Typical Household Expenditures

Some thoughts on how the cost of sewage treatment fits into an average householder's finances and perhaps why the public has bought into the Seaterra plan without protest. The plan that is $2.2 billion.

http://theriteplan.blogspot.ca/2015/05/household-costs-for-sewage-treatment-vs.html

The tertiary treatment with solids gasification proposal by Pivotal IRM and Biowater Technology discussed above would result in much lower project costs and far less impact on household expenditures!

Victoria Salon - Straight Talk About Sewage

Debate topic:
“Be it resolved that whereas the marine waters off the coast are an ecosystem that naturally absorbs and treats the present deep ocean sewage discharge, there is no need to build additional land-based sewage treatment plants for Greater Victoria”.

Gibson Auditorium Young Building,
Room 216 Camosun College,
Lansdowne Campus
Tuesday, May 12th, 2015
7pm-8:30pm

About RITE

The “R.I.T.E. plan” is more of a concept then a "plan" and it stands for Respectful discussion and process leading to an Innovative and Taxpayer friendly sewage treatment that is Environmentally beneficial.
This update was written jointly by volunteers and may not reflect the opinion of all members of the RITE plan FB group.   
or contact us at theriteplan@gmail.com  or join our open Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/theriteplan/