New Leadership
The change in leadership at the CALWMC is huge. We trust Lisa Helps and see this as a major shift towards our objectives that start with “respectful” discussion.
We only mention the following because the CRD has used the excuse “We don’t have time” in the past. When Nils was Chair he, frankly, wasted a lot of time in the way he set the agenda. Two meetings were taken up with attempts to discredit a technology that can save a lot of money. These meetings tried to bypass that discussion and they both failed in that attempt. Two meetings is two months; wasted. If the CRD ever says “We don’t have time and need to rush this”. Don’t believe them. The process from the start has been flawed and that is not the public’s fault.
Cost comparison Seaterra bio-digestion vs gasification
At last week’s meeting we crushed any further point in avoiding a discussion around advanced gasification. The savings are compelling. $330 M compared with under $100M. Possibly under $40 M and even possibly under $20 M (15 USD). Here are the project numbers:
$ 2,200 M Seaterra project 50 yr life cycle costs
$ 782 M Seaterra project capital cost (estimate)
$ 330 M Seaterra project Hartland capital costs
$ 300 M Seaterra staff report (rejected) cost estimate for gasification: just sewage sludge; just core area
$ 332 M Tri-regional study cost estimate for gasification of all waste for three regions: Nanaimo, Cowichan, Victoria
$ 100 M Local gasification experts gave conservative estimate to gasify sewage sludge.
$ 60 M Seaterra project costs to date
$ 40 M per yr Seaterra project debt and operating costs
$ 37 M Hamilton, gasification all waste, Quantity ~= Nanaimo, Cowichan, Victoria
$ 19 M “Bribe” offered to Esquimalt
$ 17 M Viewfield purchase
$ 16 M per yr Seaterra project operating costs
$ <20 M (15 M USD) Independent gasification expert is working on similar project, but twice our needs,
References:
The only numbers we don't provide links to are the cost estimates of under 100M and under 15M. See below .... failure to do any due diligence.
That price of under $20 M (15 M USD) seems reasonable when you look at the Hamilton Ontario $37 M facility. That one will handle 170,000 tonnes of material a year. To gasify just our sewage would be about 10,000 tonnes per year (very rough because the weight varies by moisture content).
The point is the cost is a gigantic step smaller than digestion. So even if it cost $40 M or even a $100M the cost savings are incredible.
Failure to do due diligence
The fact is, if Seaterra / CRD staff had done ANY due diligence in his whole sorry performance on this project, they would know about all the gasifier experts in the world by now. If they can't guess which expert we are quoting, they haven't been paying attention.
Do you know how hard it was to find out the name of a real gasifier expert? NOT HARD AT ALL. Here's how hard it was: March 13, we wanted to know if what Mr Sweetnam said to Director Atwell about gasifiers at the Feb 18 meeting was true or false. (It was false.) We did an internet search, found a company, sent them an email, had a phone call, learned that no one from CRD/Stantec/CRD has ever contacted them, asked if they'd come talk to us, the answer was no so they could bid, they recommended an independent expert, we are introduced and got to see that this expert has a very impressive CV.
Elapsed time: 5 days.
Why couldn't any of the highly paid individuals working on this plan for the last decade have done this little bit of work, and got us some decent advice on gasifiers?
Skill Testing Questions
The challenge the directors have is where do we get technical information that we can trust? In a hurry! We offer the following set of skill testing questions. Each question is from one or more events where a CRD / Seaterra / staff member failed to provide the full picture or misled the directors.
If a technical “expert” can get the right answer then trust them. The right answers are easily verified and we’ll show you how.
What is the 50 year life cycle cost of the Seaterra plan?
$2.2 billion
What net profit potentials are available with integrated resource recovery?
Pessimistic $5 million per year. Optimistic $61 million per year.
Source: Provincial study from 2008 Table 2 page ix
What is the moisture content of sewage sludge?
If your expert says “2%” then they fail. Although this is true it is misleading. The rejected staff report (Feb 18th, 2015) used the 2% figure in many places; including the discussion around 62 trucks needed to transport the sludge. It also appeared in emails from consultants in an attempt to discount the viability of gasification. Sludge from secondary treatment may be 2% but from tertiary systems like Dockside Green it is 15%.
Verification: simple phone call to Dockside Green operators. Ask them what the solids content is of the weekly blue barrels.
We’ve heard that much higher levels (25% solids?) can be attained with newer technology. Verification: find the vendors and call them.
Has Dockside ever failed?
If your expert says “Dockside has failed” then they fail. Many CRD/Seaterra staff have made this mistake and they’ve been told to stop. Yet they persist.
Engineers are supposed to know the difference between “a planned outage”, a “Provincial administrative oversight” and a “system failure”. Dockside was forced to use the CRD backup system, once, to verify it worked. This was the “planned outage”.
For a while, the province mandated that Dockside submit samples for compliance testing 7 days a week. But the province didn’t keep the labs open on the weekend so a few tests were not completed on schedule. This was the “administrative oversight”.
CRD/ Seaterra staff have made these two situations into failures. There have been NO system failures.
Does Dockside have an outfall?
Yes. Reclaimed water is discharged to the water ponds in Dockside Green and then unused water overflows into the inner harbour via a shoreline dispersion outlet (outfall). Mr Sweetnam, Feb 18th 2015 said Dockside had no outfall. Perhaps he reserves the word “outfall” for a 2 km pipe that runs out into the ocean to discharge polluted water (effluent from secondary treatment).
How many Docksides would it take to service the core area?
If your expert says 567, then run. See our blog for details
Compare the energy output from biodigestion and from gasification.
Gasification produces nearly twice the energy output compared to digestion.
Would you use a biodigester prior to using a gasifier?
Absolutely not. The whole point is to convert the mass into energy. It’s silly to suggest we’d run the mass through the less efficient bio-digestion process and then feed the depleted residue into the highly efficient advanced gasification process.
We can offer many more such skill testing questions if needed.
Upcoming Events
Eastside Public Events
April 15, 2015 2:30 PM Eastside Wastewater Treatment And Resource Recovery Select Committee 625 Fisgard St., 6th Floor Boardroom
April 15, 2015 4:00 PM Eastside Public Advisory Committee
April 29th evening. Public event in the evening
May 11-13 two day workshop
May 28 Options workshop
June Report back to public
Westside Public Events
Innovation Days where technology proponents present their solutions in three half-day workshops April 28,29,30; at Royal Roads.
Three roundtable events in May. Participants of this self-identified during the survey.
Eastside Select Committee April 15 2:30 PM
Eastside Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery Select Committee
In the boardroom
The public part of the agenda will be updated on the public consultation and the receipt of the information from the vendors who gave information to the CRD. They then will go in camera to talk about sites.
RITE planners repeatedly warn the decision makers to not pick sites before specifying what outcomes you want. For example, do you want the type of facility out on the Saanich peninsula or the type of facility at Dockside. Major differences and these impact the public’s acceptance or rejection.
Eastside Public Advisory Committee April 15 4:00 PM
Prepare for the first public event April 29th.
Prepare to engage key stakeholders include informed members of the public.
Recent Meetings
CALWMC April 8th - morning
The big news was that Lisa Helps will now lead the committee. We’ll talk more about that next week. This is really encouraging news.
Seaterra retained for the duration - slipped into report
The report that included using Seaterra for the implementation phase was accepted.
Bid extension comes and goes and what happened?
Yes, the proponents of the Seaterra plan quietly extended their bid to June (or was it July). Albert Sweetnam says this does not increase our liability, yet we don’t trust him now do we? See trust section in previous update and more below.
The Commission has been holding conference call meetings and, according to Mr Sweetnam they have only been to share information. Director Atwell raised the concern that these meetings need to be held in public and there need to be minutes from the meetings as well; according to bylaw 3851 that established the commission.
In essence, the commission is holding meetings in secret.
Independent Oversight Options
The staff will bring forward a short list of candidate experts who will provide guidance on this new phase of the project. The staff will discuss the selection criteria with Lisa, Barb, Carol and Vic (the chairs and vice-chairs). These new experts are to help after June with the technical design prior to implementation.
We recommend that these experts be able to demonstrate sound understanding of the technical options and are selected to curate the technical information rather than be expected to provide all the expertise. No small group of people can know everything about these systems. It is better if we have people that can understand the material provided by specialists and translate that into information that can be used to design the system; get public acceptance (including the experts who help with the RITE plan); and create the RFP.
This search for technical expertise is for June or later. At the same time, the Eastside committee is going to obtain technical help for the public engagement. They need help crafting the material to present to the public. The RITE planners are going to watch this very carefully. Fortunately, Chair Helps is keen to have the Eastside include discussions with RITE planers and other stakeholders so that we go to the public with as much of a common voice as possible. More about this next week.
Technical Responses
The report with the response from vendors was accepted. Director Derman, once again, stressed the need to actually go out and canvas the market place and not just passively wait for them to come. There was no comment on the issue raised by RITE planners that some vendors did not submit material because they don’t trust the CRD’s process.
Westshore Select April 7th
The Technical committee's report
says ....
∗ Reviewed flows generated by each Westside participant against the Allocation Flows
∗ Assumptions have been made for the Saanich and Victoria flows entering the centre trunk main due to lack of information from the East Side
∗ Total flow expected (2030) is just under 50 ML/day
∗ Seven reasonable flow scenarios were determined that see the number of plants ranging from a maximum of four to a minimum of one
We are hoping to get the details of this. In particular, does that 50 ML/day include Saanich and Victoria flows? I think it does. But then what are the flows for just the Westshore?
How did they derive the flow and how does it compare with the “Allocated flows” which is what the Seaterra plan is based on. (RITE planners have concerns about those flows which is a topic for another day.)
The report also says ....
Site selection criteria:
∗ Size of potential plant locations
∗ Proximity to residential lots
∗ Proximity to trunks
∗ Potential district energy systems and resource recovery opportunities
∗ Disposal of treated effluent
∗ Emergency overflow treatment of untreated effluent
We’d like to see the detailed descriptions of the criteria. Especially around resource recovery. Are they making the same assumptions Seaterra plan had baked in?
CRD Board April 8th 1:30 PM
The board meeting was mainly the usual quick approval of the results of the morning meeting.
