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.”

http://www.oakbaynews.com/news/365973471.html

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

Commentary 2 - Congested Pipes and Costs

A free technical commentary on the CRD Core Area Sewage Treatment Project

The CALWMC proposes to submit three new concepts for sewage treatment for further detailed analysis to an independent consultant. A technical oversight panel is to ensure engineering, business case, lifecycle costing and other project analysis is properly conducted by the consultant to enable fair apples-to-apples comparisons to be made as the public has clearly requested.

Read the full Commentary here:

Congested Pipes and Costs

Commentary 1 - Rock Bay Centralized - Pipes and Congested Streets

Do the Little Pieces Matter In the Big Picture?  A free technical commentary on the CRD Core Area Sewage Treatment Project  The CALWMC proposes to submit three new concepts for sewage treatment for further detailed analysis to an independent consultant. A technical oversight panel is to ensure engineering, business case, lifecycle costing and other project analysis is properly conducted by the consultant to enable fair apple-to-apple comparisons to be made as the public has clearly requested.

Read the full commentary here:

Pipes and Congested Streets

RITE plan comments on CFAX- Terry Moore regarding Eastside sites

RITE planer on CFAX radio discussing the release of technically feasible sites

Terry Moore show Tuesday May 13th 3pm
http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts

https://soundcloud.com/terry-moore-cfax/may-12-3pm-1?in=terry-moore-cfax/sets/terry-moore

Eastside releases technically feasible sites

The Eastside select committee just released their "technically feasible sites". http://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/Wastewater-Planning-2014/technically-feasible-sites-for-wastewater-treatment.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Here is a quick attempt to show these sites over top of the trunk lines.  The flow map is from the January 2015 CALWMC orientation session.

Further comments about these sites will be added here shortly.

What does Tertiary look like?

The most famous Victoria treatment facility, at Dockside, looks like this:

http://crdcommunitygreenmap.ca/sites/default/files/dockside-green.jpg

Since tertiary treatment results in reclaimed water it could look like any water scape such as this:

Click here to see a 4 page file with images illustrating treatment plants.

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

http://theriteplan.blogspot.ca/2015/05/tertiary-distributed-with-gasification_5.html

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

http://theriteplan.blogspot.ca/2015/05/cfax-interview-with-ian-jessop-about.html

CALWMC - May 13th - Agenda

http://theriteplan.blogspot.ca/2015/05/calwmc-may-13th-agenda.html

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:

To read more see our blog entry: http://theriteplan.blogspot.com/2015/05/business-owners-call-for-positive.html

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

http://theriteplan.blogspot.com/2015/05/independent-technical-oversight-panel.html

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

https://soundcloud.com/ian-jessop-cfax/may-11-2pm

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.   

To learn more visit our blog http://theriteplan.blogspot.ca/p/about-rite-plan.html

or contact us at theriteplan@gmail.com  or join our open Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/theriteplan/

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.

.....

The initial capital cost and ongoing operating costs of Seaterra’s defunct sewage treatment plant were very significant totaling several billion dollars and these costs would be passed on to all households, business, industries and institutions in the core area.

Despite the cost implications to each of us, there seems to be a general lack of serious interest in the core area population in the whole subject of sewage treatment. As creatures of habit, we turn on our taps or flush our toilets without a second thought about where that water is going, what happens to it or what impacts it has. So, how significant is the cost of sewage treatment when considered in the context of all other household expenditures?

Household Costs for Sewage Treatment

Seaterra has estimated the household charges for providing sewage treatment in the DRD core area under various scenarios (June 27, 2014 report: https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/crd-document-library/committeedocuments/seaterraprogramcommission/20140627/2014-06-27-actions-as-a-result-of-the-ministers-letter.pdf?sfvrsn=2). The scenarios include three treatment schemes: the failed centralized plant at McLoughlin Point and two alternative decentralized plant systems proposed in a 2008 study; two funding possibilities: with or without federal and provincial grants; and five levels of charges based on low to high property assessment/municipal taxation.

The household charges presented by Seaterra range from a low of $200 under their centralized scheme for a low property assessment to a high of $1900 for the 12 plant decentralized system for a high property assessment.

The project costs for Seaterra’s 6-plant and 12-plant decentralized options have been discredited by independent analysts and therefore the related household cost should be ignored. The household cost to consider in this discussion are those indicated in the first and second columns of Seaterra’s table.

For an average household, the annual costs to pay for Seaterra’s sewage treatment scheme would have ranged from $300 with funding to $660 without funding.

Typical Household Expenditures

Statistics Canada has reported the average household expenditure for British Columbia and for one-person households nation-wide (2012 and 2013 statistics: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil130k-eng.htm; http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil131b-eng.htm). The average household is a single family dwelling with 2.5 inhabitants and in the core areas of the CRD has a 2013 assessed value of $525,000.

The average 2013 household expenditure was $78,414 whereas the average 2013 one-person household expenditure was $44,709. Expenditures are divided into 20 categories as shown in the StatsCan tables.

Categories of household expenditures with values similar to Seaterra’s estimated sewage costs are summarized below. Some other categories of interest are also included.

Category of Household Expenditure	Average Household, 2013	One-person Household, 2013
Reading material and other printed matter	$193	$132
Games of chance	$232	$138
Tobacco products and alcoholic beverages	$1256	$988
Education	$1831	$436
Gifts of money, alimony and contributions to charity	$2155	$1867

Observations and Comments

Household expenditures for sewage treatment would be a very small component of total expenditures: 0.4-0.8% for the average household and 0.7-1.5% for one-person households.

Average household expenditures for reading material, other printed matter and games of chance are similar to projected charges for sewage treatment.

Seaterra maintains that distributed tertiary treatment is more expensive that its defunct centralized secondary plan. However, some vendor presentations at the Westside Innovation Days held recently at Royal Roads University suggested solutions could be provided for significantly less cost that Seaterra’s plan. In other words, a better outcome at a more affordable household cost for all.

CFAX interview with Ian Jessop about Tertiary Distributed with Gasification

Bryan's CFAX  interview with Ian Jessop starts at the 34 minute mark.

https://soundcloud.com/ian-jessop-cfax/may-7-1pm-1

The topic was to explain how a vendor could project a total CRD sewage system for just $250 million.

See http://theriteplan.blogspot.ca/2015/05/tertiary-distributed-with-gasification_5.html for more information on the vendor's proposal.

Comments from listeners after the recording was posted .... More comments welcome below.


Clear, Factual, Engaged, Knowledgeable RESPECTFUL and RITEOUS :-} Ta!

Wow. That was a good interview

Excellent ... rocked it big time!

Got the message out the the public wants more information from experts.

I love how you were explaining... that's what this word means, that's what that word means. So good.

Man, that Ian Jessop is one smart, cool headed investagative reporter. Kudos for his excellent public service. he deserves an award! Thank-You Ian for your #1 work!

[the] opening descriptors were so wonderfully straightforward and simplified ... had me listening with new thoughts!

Especially liked your pizza oven example to explain gasification! Brilliant!

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.